Gareth Thomas: Our budget for assistance to Vietnam this year is £50 million, which includes support for improvements in basic education, preventing the spread of AIDS, supporting economic development and strengthening governance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently signed a 10-year development partnership agreement with the Government of Vietnam, and committed some£250 million in aid to Vietnam over the next five years.

Hilary Benn: I accept that we need to work very hard to ensure that all countries honour their commitments, and the UK Government will certainly honour our pledges. The sort of civil society campaign evident in the run-up to Gleneagles must continue in all the countries that have made pledges to ensure thatthey are honoured, but I do not accept that debt relief is double counting. The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is the body that counts aid. The measure that it uses enables people to see both the aid element and the debt cancellation element in the aid that is given.
	The fact is that, in the 15 months since Gleneagles, 20 of the poorest countries in the world have had written off all the debt that they owed to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank. That money is now available for the things that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and I know are important—getting children into school and improving health care. Debt cancellation really makes a difference.

Tom Clarke: Can my right hon. Friend assure the Housethat Africa will remain top of the agenda in nextyear's discussions in Germany, notwithstanding that country's change of Government?

Hilary Benn: I can, indeed, assure the House because the German G8 presidency has confirmed that Africa's development will be one of its priorities, particularly in respect of the fight against HIV and AIDS, whichwe discussed a few moments ago. I welcome that enormously, because Germany has a huge opportunity during its presidency to provide leadership to the G8 and the wider world to ensure that we continue to make progress on honouring the commitments that were so hard fought for at Gleneagles.

Mark Simmonds: The G8 summit agreed immediately to implement a plan of action on climate change that will promote access by developing countries to low-carbon energy and improve their resilience to the impact of global warming. Climate change could undermine developmental assistance by reducing available water, decreasing agricultural outputs, exacerbating disputes over resources and extending regions in which diseases thrive. What progress has the Secretary of State made since Gleneagles to incentivise environmentally sustainable technology transfers and does he agree that there needs to be an expansion of tradeable greenhouse gas permits, creating an international market to cut emissions and promote spending by developing nations on cleaner fuels and energy?

Gareth Thomas: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constituents for their fund-raising efforts to help the victims of the earthquake. I know that constituents in other areas, including some from my own constituency, have also put considerable effort into fund raising. I also pay tribute to those constituents' continuing advocacy for the victims of the earthquake; doing more for them and not walking away. We need to recognise that the reconstruction effort will take a long time—not just the 12 months to date, but perhaps as long as three to five years. We are determined to stay the course and we are continuing to monitor plans for the winter period to ensure that people—those still living in tents as well as those in transitional shelters—have the support that they need.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Oxfam estimated that about 80 per cent. of the surviving families are still living in temporary shelters. Can the Minister tell us what action is being taken by the Department to improve that situation?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the contribution of Pakistani communities and I am sure that he will acknowledge that many others also contributed to fund-raising efforts. In the wake of the tsunami, the Department published a booklet setting out how people who want to contribute following a disaster or some other humanitarian emergency can best do so. I am happy to make copies of the publication available to the hon. Gentleman if his constituents want access to that information.

Hilary Benn: We are all concerned about the humanitarian situation in Darfur. As I saw duringmy visit to Sudan last week, the UN and non-governmental organisations are doing an excellent job, but they are stretched by the sheer scale of needs, and some people cannot be reached because of the banditry and insecurity. That is why I urged President Bashir to stop the fighting, implement the Darfur peace agreement and accept a UN peacekeeping force.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Marine Gary Wright of the Royal Marines, who was killed in Afghanistan last Thursday. He was a fine soldier who was doing an extraordinary job, and this country should be very proud of him.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties in the House. I will have further such meeting later today.

Stephen Crabb: Yesterday marked the passing of 11 years since the leader of Burma's democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, was incarcerated, and during that time the widespread use of torture, rape and execution by the regime has continued. I congratulate the Government on the tangible efforts that they have made on Burma, particularly at the UN, but will the Prime Minister today make a commitment to close the loophole that allows companies to use British dependent territories to invest in Burma, and to help to prop up that wicked, evil regime?

David Cameron: I think that the Prime Minister lives on another planet. After nine years there are no custodial places left for young people, secure unitsare completely overcrowded, and the Youth Justice Board warns of meltdown. Any halfway-competent Government would have seen this coming.
	Now let us look at adult prisons. Will the Prime Minister confirm that we have run out of prison places; that last year the Government scrapped prison ships and now they are bringing them back; and that police officers are being taken off the streets to become jailers? Who is responsible for this complete failure of planning?

Tony Blair: I congratulate those responsible—Antony Gormley and others—on the 100 naked men outside my hon. Friend's door. That is a lot better than what is outside my door, which is the media every morning—my apologies for that—but I suppose we should be grateful: at least they are clothed.
	My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right. One of the reasons why it is important that we continue to invest in arts and culture is that this is not a peripheral issue for us. It is an absolutely central part of creating a more vibrant and decent society and we will continue to invest in it.

Tony Blair: Obviously, I cannot say what will be in the Queen's speech before it is published, but I can give the reason why I described his proposals as I did—I am surprised that I used the word "trifle" because "dodgy" would have been the accurate description. First, the right hon. Gentleman is against the climate change levy, but we would never have been able to make the progress that we have without it. Secondly, he is asking for statutory, binding, year-on-year targets, which are very difficult to deliver because the changes that might happen in any one year could render them extremely difficult to achieve.

Tony Blair: It looks like I will get nobbled either way. We have said that we will honour the commitments that we set out in the Warwick agreement, which form the core of the Bill, and we will honour them.

Tony Blair: I have absolutely no intention of debating those issues with the hon. Gentleman. It is, however, significant that in advance of the Scottish elections next year, he does not dare ask a question about Scotland or the result of that election. That is because he knows that his policy of ripping Scotland out of the UK would be a disaster for Scotland andthe UK.

Kevan Jones: Hundreds of miners and their families in constituencies such as mine and my right hon. Friend's have benefited from the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme, which was introduced by this Labour Government. Unfortunately, unscrupulous solicitors, including Watson Burton in Newcastle, in collusion with claims handling firms are deducting thousands of pounds from victims' compensation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the guiding principle should be that victims and their families should receive 100 per cent. of their compensation and not have it plundered by unscrupulous solicitors or middlemen?

Simon Burns: Does the Prime Minister recall the helpful answer that he gave me in May this year concerning the Broomfield hospital private finance initiative scheme? Is he aware that almost six months have passed and that approval has still not been given for that project? I am sure he is as anxious as me and my constituents that this important scheme is approved and goes ahead. Will he please look at the scheme again and try to expedite approval for it?

Tony Blair: I am very happy to do so. As I understand it, there have been problems with the scheme in the past few months. The scheme will cost in the region of £170 million or £180 million, and I know that it will be worthwhile for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, there have been issues about the financing of the scheme, which I know that people are trying to sort out. I am happy to look at the scheme again to see what can be done to expedite it. Since the last time that the hon. Gentleman asked me about it, a new dimension has arisen, and it needs to be sorted out.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The United Nations instructed Iran to cease nuclear enrichment by the end of August, since when nothing has happened. Is the Prime Minister confident that he will be able to get this matter back beforethe Security Council so that we can have a binding resolution, at the very minimum preventing any further nuclear or military equipment from being exported to Iran, and is he confident that he will get the support of Russia and China in doing so?

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM—which was published on31 July. Similar statements are being made in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. On behalf of the whole House, I thank the chair of the committee, Gordon MacKerron, and its members, for the outstanding effort that they put in to arrive at their unanimous report.
	The issue of nuclear waste disposal has dogged successive Governments. CoRWM was asked to recommend the best option, or combination of options, for the long-term management of the United Kingdom's higher activity radioactive wastes, which provides protection for people and the environment. The Government believe that the CoRWM report provides a very strong basis for moving forward with clarity and consensus. We accept CoRWM's recommendations that the UK's higher activity waste should be managed in the long term through geological disposal, as well as the continuing need for safe and secure interim storage until geological disposal is available. We also agree with CoRWM that we must continue to build on the momentum that it has helped to establish.
	As CoRWM's report observes, geological disposal is the approach that is being adopted in many countries, including Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Nevertheless, securing geological disposal represents a major challenge that will require a commitment over many decades. We accept CoRWM's recommendation that the process for developing a geological disposal option should be undertaken on a staged basis, with clear decision points. That will allow Government to review progress and to assess costs, value for money and environmental impact before decisions are taken to move to the next stage.
	Planning and development of the geological disposal option must be based on four key pillars: a strongand effective implementing organisation, with clear responsibilities and accountabilities; strong independent regulation by the statutory regulators—the Health and Safety Executive, the environment agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security; independent scrutiny and advice to Government on implementation; and a partnership with the host community.
	The CoRWM report observes that the safe and secure storage of civil legacy radioactive wastes already falls within the remit of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which was established under the EnergyAct 2004. The NDA also has responsibility in its current remit for low-level radioactive waste. We have decided that responsibility for securing geological disposal of higher activity waste should also fall to the NDA, so as to create one organisation that is able to take a strategic view through all stages of the waste management chain, and that is clearly and transparently accountable to independent regulators and Government.
	The NDA is already subject to statutory safety and environmental protection and security obligations under the Energy Act 2004, and its contractors are subject to regulation by the environment agencies, the HSE and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Its strategy and annual plans are subject to approval by Government. We will ensure that, in future, the longer-term radioactive waste management interests of Government are appropriately represented in the NDA's strategy and that it has governance arrangements to reflect its increased responsibilities.
	Nirex has played an important role in maintaining and developing the UK's knowledge on geological disposal, including the provision of advice to industry on waste conditioning and packaging, since the demise of its geological disposal development programme in 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I, as joint shareholders in Nirex, are grateful to the successive chairs and the board for their hard work, and, of course, to the expert staff involved. None the less, the Government believe that having two organisations on the same playing field with potentially overlapping responsibilities would confuse and blur accountability. Instead, we are determined to harness the skill and commitment of the staff involved within the NDA.
	Following today's statement, we shall allow Nirex a short period to comment on the proposed ownership transfer and how it could best be brought about. The independent environment and nuclear safety regulators believe that the proposal will provide a framework that they can regulate strongly and effectively. They are content that the NDA will be responsible for implementing the geological disposal programme, within the constitutional arrangements that I described earlier. The regulators' support is critical, as strong independent regulation is key to ensuring the safety of people and the environment and securing confidence and trust in the delivery arrangements.
	On the third key pillar of our approach, we remain committed to the independent advice that CoRWM has pioneered so well. Accordingly, a successor to the independent committee will be appointed to give continuing advice on the plans for long-term management of radioactive waste.
	CoRWM has set the standards for open and transparent advice that takes into account not only the best available scientific and other expert input, but the views of the public and stakeholders. It has also built up support and—perhaps surprisingly, given a name that does not exactly trip off the tongue—brand recognition. The new committee will therefore maintain the current name, but its membership will be reconstituted to reflect its role in the next stage of the "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme. The committee will be sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the DTI and the devolved Administrations.
	The committee's primary functions will be to advise on the implementation of a geological disposal programme, including considering the strategy and delivery plans and the site selection process. It will make its advice available to the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done by CoRWM.
	The circumstances surrounding the long-term disposal of higher activity radioactive waste are unique. We have made it clear that we are not seeking to impose radioactive waste on any community. In that context, we strongly support exploring the concept of voluntarism and partnership, as described by CoRWM, with the local authorities serving communities that might be affected. As CoRWM recognises, there is a need to consider further how such arrangements will work in practice. Accordingly, we will look to develop further an approach that includes: the stages and decision points; how communities would be involved; the role of democratically elected bodies locally; and the potential for involvement and community packages as suggested by CoRWM.
	Disposal facilities will be built only in a geologically suitable area, and we will also consider how geological and scientific considerations will be meshed with other societal considerations as, for a successful programme, all the criteria will need to be met. I invite any local authority—or group of local authorities—that wishes to be involved in those discussions to contact me, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, or my officials directly. Similar invitations are being extended by my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.
	It must be stressed that any future facility-siting process will be a wholly new process, divorced from the historical Nirex process. Lessons have been learned from that. We are also determined that the new approach will be carried out from the beginning in an open and transparent way, with appropriate opportunity for public and stakeholder, as well as expert, involvement. In light of that further work, the Government will produce an implementation framework and publish it for consultation as soon as possible next year.
	This announcement and the more detailed response that I am publishing today—copies of which have been placed in the Library—complete stage 2 of the "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme. We are now entering stage 3: planning for implementation. We aim to be able to move to stage 4—the final implementation stage—in 2008, and we are confident that the sharing of information and viewpoints, and the transparency of the CoRWM process, will have been maintained.
	The CoRWM report states:
	"For over three decades, efforts to find solutions to the problem of long-term radioactive waste management in the UK have failed."
	Governments of all parties have struggled to develop a long-term approach to the problem that is founded on science and then driven by openness and transparency. I believe that the content of my statement today combines scientific rigour with clear accountability, and I commend it to the House.

David Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the serious tenor of his remarks and the engaged way in which he has tried to address the subject. One major issue, to which I shall return later, is the misapprehension on his part that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is anything other than a creature of this House. In fact, it was created under the Energy Act 2004, so it is not a creature of the industry.
	I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must applaud and build on the work of CoRWM, and he is absolutely right to say that this issue should not divide people according to whether they are for or against any further nuclear build. He is also right to say—he could hardly be wrong—that we must both proceed with due speed and not rush he job. He was taking no risks in setting that out. I have yet to be approached by any local authorities, but I know that Members have signalled in debates in this Chamber and elsewhere that their communities are interested in those discussions.
	I made it clear that we would give further details on the site selection process next year, which somewhat gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we do not have a forward timetable. Financing obviously needs to be considered by the Government, rather than just one Department—and certainly not just mine. That is what we propose to do, in close consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested parties, not least the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	As I said, the NDA was set up only two years ago by this House, so the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should have yet another new body, which would further complicate an already very difficult set of issues,does not seem —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman recommended setting up another new body, but our and the regulator's argument is that it needs a singular focus to achieve the accountability that is being delivered. The NDA works not for the industry but for this House and this Parliament, which gave it a very clear mandate to serve the public interest. So the hon. Gentleman should look again at the 2004 Act—I am not sure whether his party voted for or against it, but my memory is that it enjoyed wide cross-party support. It is certainly quite wrong to suggest anything other than that the NDA is driven by the Act under which it was set up.

Christopher Huhne: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the commitment to deep geological disposal as the least bad solution to the legacy of nuclear waste. However, we were slightly surprised by the statement, in that the Secretary of State congratulated—rightly—CoRWM and its chairman, Gordon MacKerron, on the work done, but then said that it is to be reconstituted. So on the one hand, CoRWM has done a good job, and on the other, it is being sacked. That is perhaps as bizarre a decision as the Prime Minister's decision, following the incompetent implementation of the single farm payment, to promote the Secretary of State's predecessor and put her in charge of Britain's foreign policy.
	May we please have a clear commitment from the Secretary of State that the distinction that CoRWM draws in its report—it was not picked up on in today's statement—between dealing with the legacy of our waste and any new decision should be very clear? There should be no assumption that the decision taken today to set in process the means of dealing with that legacy will set a precedent for dealing with new waste. There should be no licence to create new waste from new power stations.
	I am also concerned that the statement is rather mealy-mouthed about a key recommendation of CoRWM that there should be a commitment to voluntarism, and no imposition of radioactive waste on any community. The Secretary of State said in his statement:
	"We have made it clear that we are not seeking to impose radioactive waste on any community. In this context, we are strongly supportive of exploring the concept of voluntarism and partnership arrangements".
	Many communities would be much happier if the Secretary of State could tell us clearly that no community will have radioactive waste imposed on it against its will.
	Finally, I agree very much with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about the merger of Nirex with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Clearly, the build-up of skills in Nirex, to which the Secretary of State referred in his statement, is at risk of being lost in an organisation that has a financial incentive to deliver decommissioning at the lowest possible cost, rather than on the basis of safety or environmental concerns. That seems bad for safety and the environment, and it represents a considerable setback for the Secretary of State in dealing with the interests of the nuclear industry and the Treasury with regard to environmental protection.

Iain Duncan Smith: I join my colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State for his statement. May I return him to the comment of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) about the independence of those charged with overseeing the burial and refer him to what has been going on in Caithness, at Dounreay, where a geological burial site exploded in the mid-1990s, sending huge amounts of radioactive material into the bay? The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority then spent all its time lying and denying that any such thing had happened. Sincethen the problem has worsened—there has been contamination on the beach.
	The public need to be confident that what happens will happen with transparency, openness and full accountability. Will the Secretary of State now say that any mistakes that occurred in the past will be cleared up by future Governments and that there will be independence in the oversight?

Edward Vaizey: To say that Nirex is based in my constituency might be a better way to put it. I hope that the Secretary of State will move as quickly as possible to reassure my constituents who work for Nirex about their future. I simply cannot understand why the Secretary of State has made this decision. On the one hand, he says that it is because of the potentially overlapping responsibilities with the NDA, and on the other he tells the Liberal Democrats' spokesman that it is a cost-cutting measure. The Secretary of State also claims that he wants to retain the expertise and the jewel in the crown status of Nirex. He should save much time and effort and keep Nirex as an independent body that gives independent advice on one of the most important issues in the country—the safe disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

David Miliband: I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. The fundamental issue that has weighed with me and my colleagues from the DTI and elsewhere when we discuss this issue is that it is far more effective to regulate one organisation that is responsible across the whole cycle than it is to regulate two organisations with overlapping responsibilities. The discussion that I had with the Liberal Democrats' spokesman about costs was in a different context and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise. I hope that he will join me in sending the important message to his constituents that the work they do is invaluable, and the skills they have need to be preserved and delivered in the most effective way in the new organisation.

Si�n Simon: I share the admiration expressed already for the courage shown by my right hon. Friend, but despite his assurances about the independence of the oversight, what is the rationale behind designing an infrastructure that contains an obvious and inherent financial conflict of interest and then saying that everything will be alright because it will be regulated? He had an opportunity to set up an organisation that was clearly and obviously independent.

Colin Challen presented a Bill to enable local authorities to make requirements for energy saving in local development plans and in the determination of planning applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

Anne Snelgrove: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of mini motos; and for connected purposes.
	I aim to show that legislation on miniature motorbikes, which exist in a legal grey area, is necessary, popular and overdue. A new law is necessary because the situation that exists for my constituents, and for those of many hon. Members, is intolerable. I am introducing this Bill on behalf of the people whom the problem affects and on behalf of the legitimate motorcyclists to whom it is giving a bad name.
	Today, people will be tearing around roads and paths in South Swindon on mini motos, terrifying residents. In my first year as an MP, that has been one of the main antisocial behaviour problems that my constituents have come to me with, and they have every reason to expect action.
	I can tell those who have never seen a mini moto that they are replica motorbikes, only a quarter of the size of a regular bike but with a two-stroke engine that can take them to over 50 miles per hour. In theory, they are to be used only on private land, but in practice they are driven over public land, paths and, most terrifyingly, on roads. In Swindon in just one small period of this yearbetween 1 May and 19 Junethere were 128 complaints about antisocial behaviour and dangerous driving involving mini motos. That amounts to about five complaints every two days.
	I have raised the issue of minibike misuse on the paths between Eldene and Liden with PC Phil Young, and various similar problems in the Parks and Toothill areas with Inspector Steve Bridge. The police in Swindon are doing fantastic work, often involving crushing illegally ridden mini motos, but they are fighting against the tide. According to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, there has been a twentyfold increase in recent years in the number of mini motos imported into the UK from China, and representatives of the motorcycle industry believe that there could be 300,000 machines in circulation.
	However, the police in Swindon are not required by the Home Office to collate the number of accidents, serious or otherwise, that mini motos cause. That is a problem that I want rectified. I want the Home Office to supply updated guidance to chief constables to require police to report mini moto accidents separately. We need access to statistics to see if the number of injuries caused by mini motos is exploding at the same rate as that at which the bikes are flooding in.
	I can quote much anecdotal evidence on this matter from my constituency and from across the country. For example, one of Swindon's Labour councillors, Barrie Thompson, recently received a complaint from an elderly disabled woman who said that she was harassed and nearly knocked over on the path that goes up to her house by a person riding a mini moto. In a separate incident in Peterborough, a 71-year-old woman was run into by a gang of young people on minibikes and received a broken foot and fractured knee. In addition, the brain injury association Headway is backing the crackdown on the riding of mini motos, on the ground that it could cause brain injury. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has his own mini moto story to tell. His leg was gashed as a result of what happened, and I am sure that he will tell the House about it at some point in the future. The Government believe that existing legislation provides adequate powers to combat mini moto misuse. However, that argument offers no consolation for my constituents who are putting up with the nuisance. Clearly, more could be done.
	Mini motos have hurt children and can wreck lives, and it is entirely unreasonable that they should be treated by the law as toys. There has been confusion among enforcersthat is, magistrates and the policeabout whether they are considered to be motor vehicles. Apparently, magistrates have tended to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt in these cases, and the police have been uncertain about which part of the legislation should be used in prosecutions.
	I am glad that the Department for Transport acknowledges this problem and that it has issued guidance making it clear that it regards mini motos to be motor vehicles. However, in the absence of legislation the Department has left clarification to be determined by the results of further court cases. The High Court has ruled on motorised scooters but not yet on mini motos. Treating mini motos as motor scooters, which are allowed on the roads, would not be an adequate solution.
	Mini motos are not roadworthy. Unless they are modified, they do not come up to European construction requirements. By banning mini motos from the road we would send a clear message to enforcers and consumers, and the vehicles could still be enjoyed on tracks created for the purpose.
	This measure would be a popular move with hon. Members, with the motorcycle industry and with my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill two weeks ago to deal with scrambler bikes and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) is introducing a similar Bill next week. Early-day motion 2040, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was signed by 79 MPs and calls on the Government to ensure that minibikes are clearly defined as motor vehicles. That shows that the House wants to see action on tightening the regulation of off-road bikes.
	The industry does, too. Honda, based in my constituency, is supporting motorcycle industry initiatives to tackle poor-quality, far-eastern minibikes, which are flooding the UK market. My constituents also support action78 per cent. of people in Swindon say that they want a ban, as shown in a poll in my local paper, the  Swindon Advertiser, which has been hugely supportive of my campaign.
	My constituents, including the police who wish to reach offenders and youngsters and their parents who are actively involved in the fast-growing sport, have engaged extremely positively with me about the Bill. The commercial manager of Swindon speedway stadium is keen to work constructively with Swindon youth services and the police to tackle the disruptive use of mini motos. I have received a further positive offer of support from a track owner, Andrew Watts, and my constituent, James Carter, a parent involved in the sport. Mr. Carter is actively involved, together with his young sons, and he travels to a safe track to supervise their sport. He is confident that those who are involved with mini motos would welcome the Bill and he is encouraged by the local alternatives suggested as a result of the debate.
	Support for my Bill has come from parents, police, youth services and members of the public. They want to see children having fun, but not endangering people's livesor their ownand blighting neighbourhoods. Instead of a complete ban, the best approach combines both enforcement and managed provision. The law needs to be changed so that mini motos are seen as vehicles, not toys, and are driven off our streets completely. We should legislate clearly in a way that the police, the courts and my constituents can understand and have trust in. I hope that I have convinced the House that this small Bill is what we need to defeat a massive menace.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Snelgrove,Ms Diana R. Johnson, Dr. Nick Palmer, Helen Jones, Chris Bryant, Barbara Keeley, Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Ken Purchase and Mr. David Drew.

Ian Austin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Governmentwere cutting 21,000 NHS jobs, yet when his ownhealth spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), was asked by Andrew Neil a few days ago whether he and the Opposition claimed that these were job cuts and that 20,000 people currently in jobs would lose them, he replied that he did not claim that. Should not the Leader of the Opposition come back before the House to apologise for misleading us, however inadvertently, by using figures that his own spokesman admits are wrong?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Withthis it will be convenient to discuss the following Governments amendments: Nos. 28 to 30, 61, 65and 69.

Edward Miliband: As well as moving new clause 1, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I shall speak to Government amendments Nos. 28 to 30, 61, 65 and 69.
	The new clause deals with the accounts scrutiny regime for charitable companiesthat is, charities established in the legal form of a company. One consequence is that smaller charitable companies are subject to a regime whose requirements are designed for small businesses, not small charities. In the debate on the Companies Bill in the other place, Lord Hodgson tabled Opposition amendments to take small charitable companies out of the company law regime for accounts scrutiny, placing them instead within the charity law regime. The Government accepted the merit of that idea and took representations from a number of umbrella bodies for charities and professional accountancy bodies and received a favourable response, so we agreed to proceed with the idea.
	At its heart is the sensible proposition that we should treat charitable companies primarily as charities, albeit ones that happen to be set up in company form, rather than primarily as companies that happen to have charitable status. To give effect to that, changes are needed to the Companies Bill and the Charities Bill. The necessary Companies Bill amendments were made on Report last week and the principal amendment to the Charities Bill is set out in new clause 1.
	The new clause contains a new order-making power, allowing Ministers to amend the Charities Act 1993 and the Bill to reflect changes in company lawthe changes that will be made by the Companies Bill when it comes into force. The result will be that we can apply the same accounts scrutiny requirementsprofessional audit for those with an income above 500,000, independent examination for those between 10,000 and 500,000 and no compulsory scrutiny for those below 10,000to all charities, regardless of their legal form. The order-making power will also allow the group accounting requirements to be changed so that, in preparation of group accounts, a group of charities headed by a charitable company is put in the same position as a group headed by any other form of charity.

Edward Miliband: I believe that I am right in saying that about 15 per cent. of the UK's 190,000 charities are in that category, so it amounts to a significant number.
	I was about to say that because the order-making power will allow Ministers to amend primary legislation, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and amendment No. 61 achieves that.
	Amendment No. 65 is designed to ensure that the power to make consequential amendments under clause 75 can be used to amend the Companies Bill, when it is enacted, in line with amendments that the Bill makes to the Companies Act 1985.
	Amendment No. 30 is the other substantive amendment in the group. It amends new section 73E, inserted by clause 38 into the Charities Act 1993, and arises from the diligence of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)and not for the first time, either. It is designed to give the court the power to grant relief to the trustees of a charitable incorporated organisation. Section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 gives the court a power to grant relief to trustees, but the charity trustees of a CIO are not trustees within section 61 of thatAct, mainly because the CIO is a new institution.Section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 gives the court the power to grant relief to the officers of a company, but that, too, does not at present apply in the case of a CIO. The amendment therefore provides for section 727 of the Companies Act to have effect in relation to the charity trustees of a CIO.
	In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I would propose an amendment in response to his previous amendment that identified the gap I have just described. I am grateful to him for identifying it.
	Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 69 are minor consequential amendments to new clause 1 and amendment No. 30.

Martin Horwood: I, too, thank the Minister for his opening remarks. One of the best aspects of the Bill is that it has somewhat alleviated the onerous nature of company law, especially for smaller charities but also for others who might want to pursue a different path. The amendments are designed to further the spirit of reconciliation between new organisational statuses, such as charitable incorporated organisations, and existing company and charity law.
	In that spirit, I, too, am happy to support the new clause.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Martin Horwood: New clause 3 addresses a problem that has, I think, arisen by accident. Before the Charities Acts 1992 and 1993, section 29 of the Charities Act 1960 provided that no land held by or in trust for a charity thatthis is an important phrasehad been occupied for the purposes of the charity could be sold, leased for more than 22 years, mortgaged or charged to security without the consent of the court or the Charity Commission.
	Section 32 of the 1992 Act superseded the 1960 Act and imposed an overall prohibition of disposal of any land held by, or in trust, for a charity without an order from the court or the Charity Commission. That section was repealed and re-enacted without alteration as section 36 of the 1993 Act, which is the crucial provision that we are addressing.
	The effect of the rather rushed 1993 legislation was inadvertently to catch a category of land held in trust for charities, left in wills as a charitable bequest, which had not been included before 1992, because the original Act covered only land held in trust and that had been occupied for the purposes of the charity. The section 36 requirements were perfectly reasonable for the normal disposal of land by charities, which had to acquire a proper valuation and go through various procedures set out in the section. However, by applying such procedures to land left in legacies the 1993 Act inadvertently gave charities a new and serious burden.
	I shall give the Minister a few examples. Macmillan Cancer Support derives about 33 per cent. of its total income from legacies. It says:
	We spend, as best we can calculate it, some 14,500 a year on section 36 reports. This includes not only the surveyor's fee (and VAT which we cannot reclaim) but also the costs of staff in considering, processing the information, passing it to Trustees for approval, all communication with estate solicitors and co-beneficiaries and ancillary costs such as postage and photocopying...There is without doubt an adverse effect on the charity overall. The majority of the reports simply confirm what the estate Executor has already informed us about the property's broad state and value, which will usually include, for instance, an offer higher than probate value, or the possibility of development. In a small number of estates, the s36 valuation does show a higher value than the estate administrator has believed appropriate; however, it is not always the case that the market then offers the higher price.
	It calculates that
	the time spent in considering, processing and forwarding the reports represents nearly four weeks of a person's time each year, for almost no benefit.
	Macmillan makes the important point that the fiduciary duty on executors would protect assets held in trust for the charity by the executor. It states:
	We feel that little additional protection is given to the Charity's trustees beyond that which already exists by virtue of the Executor's duty to maximise assets.
	Macmillan is quite a large charity, but the provision affects smaller charities, too, for which it might be even more onerous. A letter from Battersea Dogs Home, which is at the lower end of the larger charity scale, states:
	Section 36 has proved to be incredibly confusing and costly to the charity...Unfortunately, I do not have exact figures of how many s36 reports we request per year but approximately 20 ... 10,000 of charity money on reports is a lot of money, which could easily be applied elsewhere to help our cause.
	At the upper end of the scale, the largest charity of allCancer Research UKestimates that it has spent more than 80,000 on section 36 reports in the past year and tells me:
	Release of capital from estates can be prolonged due to irregular meetings of trustees and administrative hold-ups.
	One of the procedures that are particularly onerous for larger charities is that the section 36 reports have to be presented to the charity's trustees and approved by them. That is all very well for an occasional disposal of land, but larger charities frequently have to deal with land left to them in legacies, or held in trust in legacies. Large charities such as Cancer Research UK depend greatly on legacies, so the provisions are a burden on the trustees as well as on the charity's staff.
	All in all, that adds up to a serious problem, about which we have previously advised the Minister, so I shall be interested to hear his comments. If he can provide a suitably robust form of words I shall be reassured, but this is a matter of law and unless the Bill is amended it is difficult to imagine how the problem can be tackled.

Evan Harris: I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and the names of other hon. Members from more than one party; I shall talk about Government amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125. I shall cover in passing amendment No. 122, and I shall say a word about the other Government amendments in the group for another reason.
	I accept that I come late to the Bill and I know that a huge amount of excellent work has been done by Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, not just on this Bill but on a draft Charities Bill and a previous Bill in a previous Parliament. I have followed this particular aspect with interest but I do not claim to be an expert on charity law like other hon. Members who have worked so hard on this impressive piece of legislation.
	The issue that I want to speak to is relatively narrow, and the Minister knows that it has been the subject of correspondence with, in particular, the British Humanist Association. I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, and I wish to record that. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has reported on this matter at least three times, backing in general terms the amendments that I am proposing.
	The purpose of the amendments is, as the Minister and other hon. Members know, to widen one of the descriptions of charitable purposethe advancement of religion, in clause 2(2)(c)by adding the words or belief, using a definition of belief that is consistent with previous legislation. That should be the default position. The default position in law generally is that when we talk about religion now, we talk about religion and belief. The Government's own admirable Equality Act 2006 did just that; the Communications Act 2003 did just that; and of course the parts of the Human Rights Act that deal with these issues, notably articles 9 and 14, are predicated on that basis.
	The default position should be that the Bill says religion or belief, so that non-religious belief systems analogous to religion but not religious, and not simply non-theistic religious views but non-religious belief systems, are covered. So the Government need to provide an explanation, which I may or may not agree with, of why they have departed from what is the default position in modern legislation. I hope that they will realise that there is not a good enough explanation, and will accept the amendments.
	Secondly, not to do that creates an issue of principle, which is that in our legislation, non-religious belief systems are being dealt with differently. There is an argument to be had about whether that has a practical impact; I believe that it has, although the Minister may claim that it has not. But regardless of whether there is as yet a visible practical impact, or has been in the past, there is a principled position, which must be explained.
	I have certainly received representations, and I have seen a letter dated 18 September to the Minister from the British Humanist Association, which I shall refer to, setting out the practical impact of the fact that until now charities law has dealt with non-theistic belief systems in a different way, meaning that they have to jump through extra hoops and offer extra justifications to get the treatment under charity law that religious charities get almost by default. I intend to discuss that.
	Finally, I shall draw attention to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on this issue, because that Committee's recommendation is to draw to the attention of both Houses the ongoing concerns.

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's amendments, which I have signed myself. I wondered whether he would give some idea of the proportion of the population who might be excluded in a sense from the coverage of the Bill if the word belief were not included.

Evan Harris: I was going to come on to the point that the Government have made about that. It is not that humanist or rationalist new organisations, for example, may not be able to get charitable status under another part of the clause. Indeed, the Government said in their response to reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the catch-all, which used to be clause 2(2)(l) and is now clause 2(2)(m), and refers to subsection (4), would do. That is not the issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not that those are not charitable activities; it is just that they should be dealt with in a straightforward way, in the same way as religious belief systems. It is easier, because of the specific mention of religion, for that to happen with religious belief systems.
	For reasons of non-discrimination, the default ought to be religion or belief, as defined under the Human Rights Act 1998, introduced by this Government. That definition has stood the test of all the other recent Government Bills that have mentioned religion. This Bill is a curious departure. To argue that the situation is okay because those organisations will be able to do things some other way, which might or might not take them longer, is not an argument of principle, and it is an argument of principle that I want to hear from the Minister.
	In the 18 September letter to the Minister, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, Hanne Stinson, says that the BHA has never been given any reason why the separation of non-religious beliefs from religion is necessary or desirable. That is the key point, and if that is not addressed it will be hard for us to avoid pressing the amendment to a Division. We need some sort of explanation. The BHA saysand I agreethat the situation is objectionable on formal grounds as an obvious discrimination between religion and non-religious beliefs, even if no actual detriment is caused. It says that it would be likely to lead to detriment for non-religious beliefs as different bodies of case law or Charity Commission practice built up, because cases dealing with non-religious beliefs may well not be dealt with by the same staff or in the same context as those dealt with under another sub-heading. That is at least possiblesome would say probable.
	The BHA claimsI have seen the background to thisthat Government assurances that there is no problem and that things will not be any more difficult are undermined by past Charity Commission practice and by Government assurances of special treatment for religion. I will give a brief example. They cite the Minister saying on Second Reading:
	it is right that public benefit must be shown, but...at least for religion, the obligation will not be onerous.[ Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 96.]
	As the reference is not to religion or belief that can be taken, and is taken, to show that for religion the obligation may not be onerous, but it may be for things covered by the catch-all, or the items relating to education that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We know from other debates that education is a difficult ground for which to show public benefit.
	The Government need to be aware that in practical terms, there has been an impact. The BHA goes on to explain that past practice shows that it can be onerous to get charitable status for a rationalist or humanist belief. The Rationalist Association sought registration as a charity in February 2001 and put in an amended application in November 2001. The process took another 15 months after the amended application was made, and there was endless correspondence with a variety of Charity Commission staff, each pursuing different lines of unnecessary inquiry, before at last the application was approved in exactly the amended terms proposed in November 2001. That cost a lot of money and delay.
	The commission made the following assertion in the course of that correspondence:
	the promotion of Rationalism and Humanism in themselves ... is not a charitable activity.
	Would the commission ever write to a Christian charity to say that the promotion of Christianity in itself is not a charitable activity? I believe that debates will show that if anything, assurances have been given that the straight promotion of, for example, Christianity is to be considered a charitable activity in itself, before the other test about public benefit, which we might debate later, is passed. I share the BHA's view that that is
	the clearest demonstration of blatant discrimination against non-religious beliefs by the Commission and of the need for the Bill to bring religious and non-religious beliefs together under the same head so as to deter to some extent at least such detrimental treatment of humanist charities in the future.
	It has been argued that because there is a wide variety of non-religious beliefs, they demand special scrutiny. However, the same applies to religion. There are a multitude of religions. The Government have been reluctantI do not argue with thisto define religion in statute, but have recognised that there will be a number of religions. The non-religious beliefs that qualify under the Human Rights Act as being governed by article 9 are already delimited by case law, and non-religious beliefs are no different from religious ones in being required to show public benefit. One can always argue about Scientology and so forth, but the same arguments that might apply to non-religious belief systems apply to somesome might say allreligious belief systems. I am talking about the questions that need to be addressed.

Evan Harris: Just as the Government do not get drawn into giving lists of examplesrightly soI am not going to be. The understanding of the definition of belief in the Human Rights Act, which is the definition that I have proposed and that the Government use in all other legislation, clearly does not cover politicalbelief systems. There is not a shred of jurisprudence to suggest that it ever would. The definition is meant to refer, does refer, and is understood to refer, to rationalist and humanist belief systems, for example. I am not an expert in these matters. We all have other things to be getting on with rather than worrying about the meaning of life, even at a time like this. However, the people who are affected have written to express their views. There will be humanists and rationalists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I know that he will think about these things deeply before deciding whether to opt for a discriminatory, or apparently discriminatory, approach, and he will have their interests and feelings in his mind as he decides his position.
	I want to cover what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said and then I will draw my remarks to a close. The Committee was clear in its scrutiny of the draft Charities Bill. In paragraph 5.23 of its report of 1 November 2004its 20th report of that Sessionit stated, after setting out the Government's response that they were satisfied that organisations advancing non-religious beliefs would not be disadvantaged under the Bill as currently drafted:
	We remain of the view that Convention compliance could best be supported by including the advancement of non-religious beliefs as a charitable purpose under clause 2(2)(c)
	I believe that that is still clause 2(2)(c) several versions later
	and we draw this matter to the attention of both Houses.
	The Committee went on to comment on that in its report on the Charities Bill in the last Session. It set out its detailed argument in paragraphs 3.11 to 3.15. I will not repeat that, but the Committee did want to reiterate the following point, in paragraph 3.15:
	Whilst we appreciate that clause 2(2)(l)
	now clause 2(2)(m), which refers to thesubsection (4) catch-all
	is capable of application in the way suggested by the government, we remain of the view that protection of Article 9 rights on an equal basis could most effectively and clearly be ensured by provision on the face of the Bill, expressly extending clause 2(2)(c) to cover all religious and non-religious organisations which promote systems of belief. As we stated in our report on the draft Bill, at a minimum, guidelines under the Bill must clarify that organisations advancing all forms ofboth religious and non-religious beliefs protected by Article 9 would be accorded recognition under either clause 2(2)(c) or clause 2(2)(l) on an equal basis.
	If guidelines are going to say, Use clause 2(2)(c) to cover non-religious belief systems, why not just include religion or belief and make the statute look like what the guidance needs to be?
	Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights returned to the matter in its latest report on the subject, the first report of the 2005-06 Session. It recognised that there had been some improvement, because a definition of religion had been included. I want to record on behalf of the Committee, informally, our recognition that that was done. In paragraph 1.8, the Committee states:
	We welcome the broad definition of religion in clause 2(3)(a), as supporting the Article 9 and Article 14 rights of those promoting non-theistic or multi-theistic religions. However we support the conclusion of the previous committee that, whilst compatibility with Article 9 and Article 14 could be achieved in practice
	I believe that that is arguableby application of the catch-all
	as proposed by the government, such compliance would best be assured by a definition which extended to non-religious belief systems falling within the protection of Article 9 ECHR. We draw this to the attention of both Houses.
	We thus have not only arguments of principle, but the fact that the default is to use a definition such as that proposed. We also have three recommendations of the Joint Committee, which was set up by Parliament to advise it on human rights and discrimination, and a practical impactand we have heard in return no convincing arguments of principle from the Government about why they are not doing what I propose.
	The problem is that there will be attemptsamendment No. 126, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), is an exampleto treat religion as not requiring a public benefit test. If that were ever to come to pass it would clearly breach article 14, which addresses the duty of non-discrimination in respect of rights enjoyed under article 9, and exacerbate the existing system. The Government could solve such problems by accepting my amendments today.
	May I speak briefly to Government amendmentNo. 3? I have a close association with the British Chess Federation, which has lobbied the Minister hard on the need not to have a provision in the Bill that would exclude the federation a priori from justifying its pursuit, which is enjoyed by many disabled and elderly people, as a sport of the mind. The federation would wish me to put on record its thanks to the Government and the Minister, who will have free entry to any chess cluband they are pretty wild placesand to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for raising the matter in Committee. The Government have done a good thing by tabling that amendment, so I hope that they will also do a good thing for the humanists, not all of whom play chess.

Charlotte Atkins: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon(Dr. Harris) will not be surprised to hear that I wish to speak about the issue that he just raised. I welcome Government amendment No. 3 because it is clearly intended to include activities such as chess in the scope of the clause on the advancement of amateur sport. I applaud that, because the promotion of chess will bring a huge public benefit for not only people who are disabled or elderly, but young people, especially. When we talk about chess, it is often not recognised that it does not require mental agility and concentration alone. At higher levels, a lot of physical effort is required to engage in a match lasting perhaps several hours.
	Cheddleton and Leek chess club, which is one of the most successful chess clubs in the country, is in my constituency, and plays at national level in the four nations chess league. It has produced five British junior champions and one visually impaired international player, so I can tell the Conservative Members who are smiling that it is not a joke club.
	Charitable status would enable the club to attract even more people into the sport, and would mean that it could put on more events such as its successful annual congress, which draws many people, including international masters and grand masters, to Leek. The club could then also provide much more coaching to young people. It always holds a session on Friday nights for the adult and junior clubs, and also goes into schools to promote chess.
	The Cheddleton and Leek club grew out of the passion of many young chess players. Back in 1973, chess was on the junior school curriculum, but there was nowhere for the youngsters to play after they got into high school. They thus pleaded with a teacher, Robert Milner, to set up a club so that they could continue to play. It is absolutely remarkable that the same Robert Milner is leading the club today; he should be congratulated on that.
	Chess remains on the curriculum at St. Edward's middle school, because it is recognised that chess hugely improves pupils' concentration and benefits their learning potential overall. When I was a school governor in London, a team of young black students took on many private schools in south London and did remarkably well. Many of those students played chess in their playgrounds on the benches provided. Chess gave them huge motivation and massively improved their concentration and learning potential.
	The Cheddleton and Leek club now boasts a junior section with 70 members, and its overall membership is more than 100. It has nine teams in the junior league. Many of the youngsters take on older playersfrequently beating themand there is a great rapport between the students, who can be as young as eight, and club members in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s. The club does a tremendous job locally and should receive recognition for it. I am extremely grateful for Government amendment No. 3, because it will ensure that the club can get on the road to charitable status, which will allow it to get the support that it deserves and continue its valuable work in the community. I hope that other chess clubs throughout the country will follow its good example.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My understanding is that rugby union sevens would fall within the ambit of the clause as part of the Commonwealth games. He and I must have a chat some time about my distinguished rugby history, although I did not perform at any of those games.
	On the edge of my constituency, Woking, can be found the Great Britain Target Shooting Federation, based at Bisleya very fine organisation indeed. The federation manages target shooting with both rifles and pistols, and co-ordinates those sports at the Olympic and Commonwealth games. It works hard with and is admired by Sport UK, and has an exemplary reputation. I say immediately for the avoidance of doubt that I am talking about target shooting with rifles and pistols, which has nothing whatever to do with hunting.
	The Bill introduces the concept of the advancement of amateur sport as being a charitable purpose. Sport is defined, rather narrowly, in clause 2(3). The Government have tabled their own amendment No. 3, which slightly broadens that definition. That is all to the good. The federation, not unnaturally, is concerned about the fact that target shooting with rifles and pistols, which is recognised by the Olympic and Commonwealth organisations as an amateur sport, could be excluded by reference to the current definition of sport, though I hope not by the Government's new proposed definition.
	The sport to which I refer, and its governance, must not be confused with hunting or any gun lobby. Target shooting sport in the UK was founded in 1859 and featured in the first Olympic games of 1896 and every games, bar two, since then. Target shooting is an Olympic, Commonwealth and Paralympic sport. The home nations have a high reputation internationally and regularly win medals. Target shooting provides many opportunities for competitive sport at county, national and international level through recognised international governing bodies.
	Target shooting sport, as regulated and governed by the national governing bodies, is an inclusive sport without any discrimination and with special emphasis on encouraging the young. It provides a safe sport requiring physical and concentration skills, and promotes and maintains health. It also provides a safe sport for those with disabilities, including blindness or sight impairment, in some cases on equal terms with the fully able-bodied. It provides a lifelong sports activity for the very young to the very old. It is a sports activity encouraged by many local councils, schools and cadet units. It encourages a responsible attitude to shooting and the handling of firearms from club level upwards, and is therefore a force for good in society.
	The listing of target shooting sport as a charitable activity in the advancement of amateur sport is fundamental to the federation, and would help to give it the financial ability to support target shooting not only for its members, but for the blind and the Paralympics, and for the training of Olympic hopefuls. I believe that the Minister of Sport is sympathetic to the federation's position, for I gather that in relation to the Olympics he has written a paper for the Home Secretary to help facilitate the making of arrangements for squad practice for target pistol shooters in the UK in preparation for 2012.

Tom Levitt: I speak as chairman of the all-party group on the voluntary sector and charities, as it used to be called. The all-party group on the community and voluntary sector, as it has been called for the past year or so, takes great interest in the progress of the Bill. I shall deal with amendmentsNos. 123 to 125 from a personal perspective, but first I shall comment on Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3. They are good examples of the Government having listened to debates and accepted that loopholes need to be closed and anomalies corrected. Neither of the amendments is earth-shattering, but it was clear to those of us who served on the Standing Committee that members of the constabulary particularly were worried about the anomalous position of police welfare organisations. Extending the provision to all the emergency services removes any doubt. I therefore welcome the amendments.

Martin Horwood: I remember the hon. Gentleman teasing members of the Standing Committee about supporting an amendment, which he described as
	harmless, albeit not entirely necessary.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 July 2006; c. 6.]
	Now, that amendment has been introduced as a Government amendment. Should we regard something which is harmless, albeit not entirely necessary, as the High Peak principle?

Tom Levitt: Was it? Oh, right.  [ Laughter. ] Nevertheless, the Cheltenham principle of advocating a provision that is harmless, albeit not entirely necessary was advanced so many times. This provision would not be regarded as not entirely necessary by those who will benefit from it.
	On chess, I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). I ask her to pass on my best wishes on the success of the campaign to Robert Milner, whom she mentioned as the father of chess in north Staffordshire. I remember him well from my days growing up in Leek, and I also taught alongside him for a short period on teaching practice.
	Returning to amendments Nos. 123 to 125, I suspect that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I have similar views on religious faithI do not profess to hold religious views, and neither does he. However, I have reached different conclusions about the need for and practicality of legislating on the protection or the charitable status of non-religious views. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech addressed beliefs and belief systems themselves, whereas it seems to me that charitable purposes can apply only to organisations which are involved in promoting those beliefs and belief systems.
	One would not want to discriminate on the grounds of lack of religious belief, in the same way as we do not allow discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, but the Bill does not do that, because it contains so many opportunities for an organisation involved in advancing non-religious beliefs to have its rights protected and for its charitable purposes to be recognised. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were right not to define religion too tightly, but then appeared to accept that non-religious beliefs could be defined sufficiently well to put them in the Bill, which I found particularly difficult to get my head around.

Tom Levitt: Either my hon. Friend is thinking along the same lines as me or he has been reading the proceedings in Committee, where I raised that very point. In Committee, the Minister told me that clause 2(3)(a), which covers what religion includes, can include matters besides those listed in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). I hope that that is clearthat explanation was clear enough for my satisfaction at the time.
	In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out that subsection (2)(e) refers to citizenship or community development. In this day and age, I do not think it possible to discuss citizenship without discussing belief systems and, indeed, the beliefs that underlie those systems. I therefore think that an organisation that is involved in citizenship or community development from an explicitly and specifically non-religious point of view could justify its charitable status under subsection (2)(e).
	Subsection (2)(h) relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. As
	the advancement of human rights
	is included as a purpose in the Bill, I therefore presume that that includes article 9(1) of the Human RightsAct 1998. Even if that point were not covered, subsection (2)(m) refers to
	any other purposes within subsection (4),
	which includes
	any purposes that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes falling within any of those paragraphs...above.
	Surely a non-religious organisation, in so far as it is all about beliefs and the advancement of those beliefs, is analogous to a religious organisation. Those provisions would allow a non-religious organisation to have its purposes acknowledged as charitable.

Tom Levitt: As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, it is not practical to define exactly what we mean by religious beliefs. It would be completely wrong to include a schedule to the Bill listing religious beliefs for the purpose of the Bill. Even among humanism, atheism and agnosticism, there are lots of different views, and different organisations may adopt slightly different approaches. I do not think that we should to seek to define religious beliefs too closely.
	Finally, I have always believed that one of the problems with the funding of political parties is that the public benefit that political parties provide to this country is not recognised in law or charitable law. On another occasion, perhaps we can examine whether political parties are involved in subsection (2), although that may be a discussion for another day.

Martin Horwood: This is an interesting debate that illustrates a theme that was clear in the debate on section 36 agreementsthat there is a practical advantage in having clarity in such a Bill, because that avoids the kind of arguments that are reasonably harmless in this place but when conducted in the courts and with solicitors add up to delays and large bills for the charities involved.
	Government amendment No. 2, which has not been discussed a great deal, adds a head of charity for
	the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services.
	We owe the amendment to the inspiration of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and I am pleased that the Government have tabled it. It is an example of adding clarity to the law in such a way as to avoid onerous debate and discussion by the relevant charities.
	I had to be persuaded that amendments Nos. 123 to 125 had such a practical impact as well as the point of principle involved. My personal experience with humanist organisations was always that they had managed to achieve charitable status through the formula of the mental and moral improvement of mankind. The Minister pointed that out to me in Committee. The formulation, religion and belief, is increasingly widespread not only in human rights law but in Government legislation on several different topics. I even found a regulation that refers to it in its titlethe Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Some people worry that this might open the door to Marxism, for example, becoming charitable. However, the meaning of belief is well established in this context, as in those regulations and in human rights lawit does not extend to political beliefs but is limited to relevant beliefs such as humanism and secularism.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that is not quite my point. The formulation, religion and belief, is now widely accepted and understood in a variety of different [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking her head; perhaps she would like to explain why the title of the employment discrimination regulations and the formulation proposed by the Charity Commission are wrong. The fact is that it is now a widely accepted formulation in legislation, in case law and in many other respects. In principle, it means that humanist and secularist organisations do not to have to jump through a series of hoops to prove that they are analogous to religion.
	We have heard about some imaginative ways of achieving that. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) gave a list of the different heads of charity that they might come under. The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) suggested that they might squeeze in under the human rights head of charity or fall within the subsection that allows for purposes analogous to those listed previously. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Why should humanist and secularist organisations have to jump through these extra hoops in this area of law alone when it is not required, for instance, in relation to anti-discrimination law or human rights law?
	This debate would be so much dancing on pinheads if the confusion did not have a practical impact, but I am persuaded by some of the correspondence that I have received that it does. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon cited the Rationalist Association, which had to wait two years before its registration was eventually accepted, at some cost not only to the association but to the Charity Commission. I dread to think how much of the commission's staff time was chewed up in arguing over the fine detail of the case.
	To follow the High Peak principle, there is another advantage in clarifying the law, even if the outcomes may be the same in that, one way or another, humanist and rationalist organisations will achieve charitable status. This is clearly an area of confusion. Most members of the Committee will be familiar with the example given by Mr. Rosser-Owen of Religions Working Together, who recently wrote about a description that has recently been changed on the Charity Commission's website in another context. It states:
	Belief in a Supreme Being is a necessary characteristic of religion in charity law which is why the criteria that we use include reference to a Supreme Being rather than a god. The existing law allows theistic, non-theistic and polytheistic faiths to be regarded as religions in charity law and the precise nature of a Supreme Being is not defined. A Supreme Being does not necessarily have to be in the form of a personal creator god; it may be in the form of one god or many gods or no god at all in the accepted understanding of the term.
	The idea that a supreme being may be in the form of no god at all is a new one on me, and it illustrates the importance of the Bill in clarifying the position beyond reasonable doubt and allowing us to proceed on a more rational basis. I am happy to support amendments Nos. 123 to 125.
	Moving on to the lighter topic of sport, I am happy to support amendment No. 3. I am sure that chess players everywhere will be celebrating, in a cerebral sort of way. It is a positive contribution to the Bill.
	Amendment No. 122, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), suggests that we use the Olympic games, the Paralympics and the Commonwealth games as a guide to what constitutes a sport. Given that I am a member of a party led by a former Olympian, it would be churlish of me to oppose the amendment, which provides a neater formulation than the one in the original Bill. Some hon. Members are worried that certain worthwhile sports may be excluded. However, as the amendment adds to the Government's current formulation in the Bill, we need not worry about the exclusion of any sports apart from those that might have difficulty qualifying under the Government's formulation of requiring physical or mental exertion. The hon. Gentleman clearly has shooting in mind, and I am happy to support that in principle provided that nothing gets killed in the process.

Martin Horwood: Absolutely. A few others might have had difficulty in getting through under the formulation, physical or mental exertion. Synchronised swimming, which is an Olympic sport, certainly involves physical exertion. Curling and, I understand from the Commonwealth games website, 10-pin bowling would unambiguously be brought into the Bill by the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which is spreading the net rather wide. I say to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that I am sure that croquet is already included under mental exertion. I speak with some authority because the Cheltenham croquet club has played host in recent years to the world croquet championships, which I attended. I was disappointed not to see the Deputy Prime Minister thereI gather that he is a fan of the sport. Great mental exertion was in evidence on that occasion, not least because two games are sometimes played simultaneously on the same lawn. That is mind boggling.
	I support the group of amendments. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear in any directions that he gives the Charity Commission on the substance of amendments Nos. 123 to 125 that humanist and secular charities will no longer have to jump through the hoops that the Charity Commission has specifiedin the past. I therefore also hope that, in future, there will be a more level playing field between those organisations and religious charities.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful for that observation.
	Before getting to the meat of my remarks, I wanted to tell the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that it was not only the Rationalist Association that had to spend two years obtaining charitable status from the Charity Commission. Many organisations spend two years or more doing that. They include an organisation that promotes the protection of Bembridge harbour in my constituency. I am concerned that it takes the Rationalist Association and many other organisations too long to achieve charitable status.
	I warmly welcome Government amendments Nos. 2 and 4 and the inclusion of police charities in the Bill. We pressed for that in amendment No. 1 in Committee. I also welcome the further inclusion of charities that benefit ambulance and fire service personnel and their dependants. I am especially pleased about those amendments.
	I want to spend most of my time on Government amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 122, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) tabled.
	Clause 2(2)(g) provides for
	the advancement of amateur sport
	as a charitable purpose when it is defined insubsection (3)(d) as
	sport which involves physical skill and exertion.
	There is already a circular element to the definition. I make no bones about welcoming Government amendment No. 3, which was tabled following remarks on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who listed sports that do not qualify as charities. They appear in the notorious RR11 as:
	Angling, ballooning, billiards, pool and snooker, crossbow, rifle and pistol shooting
	rifle and pistol target shooting, I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking
	flying, gliding, motor sports, parachuting.
	I see no reason why such sports should not benefit from charitable status subject to their fulfilling the public benefit test. Others, such as darts, are popular but do not appear to fall within the definition in clause 2.
	There is a two-hurdle process in acquiring charitable status. The first question is whether an applicant is covered by the definition in clause 2. After establishing that, the second question is whether the activity fulfils the public benefit test in clause 3. There is no point in worrying about clause 3 unless one can be sure of clearing the hurdle in clause 2.
	In Committee, we tabled an amendment that would have deleted the restrictive definition in clause 2(3)(d). The Under-Secretary kindly agreed to consider it. He has devised something that appears both to broaden and restrict the eligibility of different sports. Conservative Members welcome the extension of the clause to cover mental as well as physical skill and exertion, as do the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and others because chess will be included. We also welcome the inclusion of games as well as sport, although I should like to know whether a new definition of games is emerging in the bowels of the Charity Commission.

Andrew Turner: The principle is good and I am pleased about the inclusion of chess, but I am worried that some less fashionable sportsmy hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) made some disparaging remarks about darts players

Edward Miliband: I shall do so in a moment.
	The second reason is important and complex, and it is a reason of practice. The clause that we are debating merely establishes a heading of charitable purpose. As with all charitable purposeswhether for animal welfare, education or anything elsea test must then be applied to show that there is public benefit by the commission and, ultimately, the court.

Edward Miliband: In order to pass the public benefit test there needs to be an entry point of some kind, and the accepted entry point is health. If Parliament wanted to legislate to say that all sports are automatically for the public benefit, it could do so. In my view, it should not take that decision because there should be a proof of public benefit of some kind. There is a whole range of public benefits that it is open to different sports to prove that they possess. There is helping young people and the disabledI shall deal later with the specific case that the hon. Member for Woking raisedwhich, at least in part, are charitable purposes, and the promotion of health, with which this part of the Bill deals. Our principal position is that there should be a public benefit, unlike community amateur sports club relief, which applies to all sports. I am afraid that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking would not achieve the purposes that some Members seek to achieve.

Charles Walker: I hate to carp on[Hon. Members: Oh.] Will the Minister confirm that he is aware of the huge contribution that angling has made to involving people with disabilities and young people in the sport?

Edward Miliband: If I was not aware of it before, I am now, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his advocacy of the work that angling does.
	I turn to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, which were debated extensively in another place. It remains the Government's view that they are neither necessary nor desirable, and I want to explain why as briefly as I can. They are not necessary because it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that organisations promoting non-religious belief systems such as humanism and rationalism can be charitable. The British Humanist Association, for example, has been a registered charity since 17 January 1983.
	I was slightly confused by the speech from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). He said that it has been established that humanist organisations can be regarded as charitable under the provision concerning the moral, mental and spiritual improvement of humankind. So there is a clear charitable purpose in respect of which humanism can make its case; more than that, it is accepted under that provision that humanism is a way of promoting such improvement. The amendment on humanism is unnecessary because humanism's contribution to charitable purposes is established in law and accepted by the Charity Commission.

Edward Miliband: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more patient, I would have come on to some of the practical ways in which the Charity Commission deals with humanist organisations.
	I shall now explain why the amendment is not only unnecessary but undesirable. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon tried to mount a compelling argument, but I did not think that he clarified the way in which belief is defined under the Human Rights Act. Actually, it is not defined under the Human Rights Act. As I understand it, the Human Rights Act reference to belief has been relied on for cases of non-discrimination, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) pointed out. If public resources are being made available, however, the order of magnitude is different. We would want to be assured that we were not opening up the definition, through the use of the phrase religion or belief, toa wide and uncertain class of individuals or organisations.
	I am struck by the debate in the other place, in which Lord PhillipsI do not know whether he is still in the other place

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that Lord Phillips has left the other place. Lord Phillips talked about precisely this issue, and I know how much he is relied on by the Liberal Democrats. In speaking to an amendment in Grand Committee, he said:
	The phrase 'or belief' has no constraint to it at all...'belief' on its own could embrace eugenics, hunting or a thousand and one other things. Frankly, we would be in a dark, deep, uncharted sea if the amendment were agreed.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2005; Vol. 669, c.GC45.]
	I tend to agree with him on that point. The reason that the amendment is undesirable is that it would potentially open up charity law and charitable status to a whole range of organisations. As the noble Lord said, we would be in uncharted territory.

Edward Miliband: One of the questions that we will address in the Bill, which we will come on to debate if we ever move on, is whether a public benefit test should be applied to all organisations, including religious organisations. My point to the hon. Gentleman is that we are some hundreds of years into the establishment of religion in charity law. Yes, the Charity Commission must make decisions about scientology and other religions, but Parliament, if it is amending legislation and passing charity law, must think carefully before potentially opening up the definition to a whole set of organisations that might come forward and say that they are now for a charitable purpose.

Chris Bryant: I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend says. For the avoidance of doubt, however, on the matter that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), an ordinary person looking at the Bill might think that religion is now defined as involving belief in more than one God, or as not involving belief in a God at all. I presume that that does not preclude religions that only believe in one God. Obviously, it would be odd to include pantheism but not panentheism, and to provide support for those who believe in Diana of the Ephesians but not for those who believe in Jesus of Nazareth.

Edward Miliband: I reassure my hon. Friend that the coverage is supplementary to that of belief in one God.
	Unfortunately, as I recognise the eloquent case made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and the problems faced by humanist organisations, those are the reasons why we cannot accept his amendments. He has referred to difficulties that rationalist organisations have had in dealing with the Charity Commission, but I do not think that that derives from uncertainty that organisations promoting rationalist beliefs can qualify for charitable status under the law. I have discussed the matter with the commission, as it has been raised in the other place as well as by him. Let me put on the record that the commission accepts that it needs to acquire a greater understanding of the basis of rationalist and other non-religious belief. It has agreed to engage in a consultation process with the relevant representative organisations in parallel with discussions now taking place with religious bodies.
	I hope that that explains why we feel unable to accept the amendment. I also hope that it demonstrates the seriousness of the commission's intent to ensure equal treatment and respect for humanist organisations.

Evan Harris: Before the Minister ends his speech, I want to give him an opportunityfreestyle, as it wereto deal with the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government are in peril of finding themselves outwith articles 9 and 14 of the European convention on human rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. There has not been a Government responseas there need not be under the current arrangementsto both reports on the matter so far.

Evan Harris: We have had several excellent debates within one debate, but I shall refer only to the issue that the Minister has just raised. I said at the outset that, in the face of three warnings from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, he must persuade those of us who support the amendment that there is a principled justification for treating non-religious beliefs differently from religion. That is the test. The Minister said that there were two planks to his argument: that the amendment was not necessary, which is not a principled justification but one based on practice, and that it was not desirable, which was at least entering into the discussions of principle.
	In fact, even the practical argument does not apply, because the Minister based it on the fact that there was not a shadow of doubt that the non-religious organisations concerned could be charitable. I accept that entirely. The fact that they are charities suggests that they can be charitable. However, it is not a question of whether they can ever be charities; it is a question of whether they can be charities as easily, or according to the same tests, as organisations for the advancement of religious belief. That has not been found to be the case in practical terms.
	Let me now deal with the Minister's argument about the commission's wish to have discussions with non-religious organisations in parallel with its discussions with religious organisations. That is a practical matter. It is a welcome practical matter, and I do not want to sound churlish. It is about time that it happened, so it is welcome. However, the fact that the discussions will be in parallel with the discussions with religious organisations prompts me to ask why they are not being dealt with under the same heading.

Evan Harris: The Minister accepts that separate discussions are necessary because he proposes to deal with them separately, under different headings. That is, in fact, my point. In a sense, the concession actually confirms that the treatment of non-religious organisations is differentand, I would argue, unequal and unfair.
	I asked the Minister to come up with a principled justification. Coming to his aid, the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said that it was difficult to define belief; but as it is just as difficult to define religion, so any arguments about definition apply to religious beliefs as much as to non-religious beliefs. Just because a god is involvedor even if there is notit does not solve the problem. The argument that the hon. Gentleman used as a principled justification for making humanist societies do something different is that they can do something different. But that is not a justification for making them do something different.
	The final argument was that it is okay to have equal treatment in discrimination law, but not in this respect. The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to public bodies so that they cannot discriminate in employment, in the disbursement of public funds or the treatment of an organisationand the Charity Commission is clearly a public body. If a public body discriminated in employment, the victim would have two arguments, one based on the Act and the right to freedom of belief, and another based on employment legislation. The latter does not rely on the Act, but is freestanding under the EU directive and the employment regulations. The fact that employees in the private sector have an extra protection against freedom from discrimination on the basis of race and, now, religion is not an argument that public authorities should be allowed to discriminate disproportionately without justification. That is not an effective argument against the risk of incompatibility that the Joint Committee set out. If the Charity Commission, as a public body performing the public function of deciding which organisations are charitable, discriminates without justification against someone on the basis of their religion or beliefin the words of the Human Rights Act 1998it will be liable under a claim on that basis.
	The Government have said nothing to justify the statement on the Bill that it complies with the human rights legislation. The Minister said that there would have to be a separate consultation because the process will be different. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) argued that the distinction was necessary because rational belief systems would more easily pass a public benefit test and, therefore, non-rational belief systems, such as religious oneshe said that non-judgmentallywould require a light touch public benefit test. That would be discriminatory, in a sense, and there would therefore be a good case under the Human Rights Act 1998 for discrimination. Just because someone has a rational point of view, they should not be made to pass an extra test. The fact that the harbour charity in his constituency took two years to gain charitable status is to be regretted, but it is not the right comparator for the point that I made.
	The difficulty for those of us who support the amendmentthe Minister will note that some Labour Members do sois that the Government have not come up with a principled justification for treating non-religious organisations differently from religious ones, despite three warnings from the Joint Committee that they need to address the issue. I accept the spirit in which the Minister made his remarks, but the only concession that he has made confirms that the process will be different. In a sense, that is the last thing that we wanted to hear. With that in mind, it is my intention to test the opinion of the House on the issue, because the Government will need to be able to show that they have taken that view. I apologise for detaining the House on the matter, but it is a key point of principle.
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not, of course, complain at all about your, quite rightly, calling for the Doors to be locked, but I ask your advice. When the two major parties are voting together and there are long queues up the Stairs and through the Doors with no way of getting to the Lobby in time, couldthe House authorities look at ways of expediting the entrance of Members to enable them to get to the Division Lobby in time?

Andrew Turner: I begin by apologising to Members who expected my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to speak to the amendment. I am sure that if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will have the opportunity to speak, but I acknowledge that many Members would have preferred that she do so now.
	There are two purposes only to the amendment, and both encompass the removal from the Bill of the presumption that the advancement of religion is a charitable activity. The first purpose, raised by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is to question whether the Charity Commission is willing or able to apply the right public benefit test to religions. The second is to ask whether it is possible for certain religions to pass that test.
	In Committee, we discussed three different activities in the same debate: education, the relief of poverty and the advancement of religion. Under the Bill, each of those activities loses the presumption of public benefit. It was accepted that the public benefit test varies from group to group. Despite the fact that all those activities have enjoyed the presumption of public benefit, some charities have none the less had to demonstrate public benefit, so public benefit tests vary from group to group. This debate will give us the opportunity to concentrate solely on religion.
	In Committee, I said:
	I am told that...it is not those who engage in religious practices who are the public who benefit; the public benefit is the benefit that they bring to society by rubbing shoulders with those who do not so engage...people who engage in religious practices are presumed to become more moral and altruistic as a result, so the public at large benefit when they mix with such people.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 July 2006; c. 50.]
	On Second Reading, however, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that
	all charities will have to show that they are for the public benefit...an organisation will have to show that it generates identifiable benefits that reach...a sufficiently large section of the public.[ Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 25.]
	My concern is that some charities will find it very difficult to demonstrate that.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the good works done by many religious groups depend greatly on their belief? The amendment would certainly endanger that activity, and could perhaps stop some of the wonderful work being done by our churches, synagogues, temples, and other religious groups?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), referred to wonderful work, but that is presumably work that is wonderful for people other than the people who hold the beliefs, so that proves the exact point against which he is trying to argue.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman used the word pray, but he did not spell it for us. Would he not accept that there are some people and organisations that prey, and that a distinction must therefore be made between them and organisations that pray? The common-sense approach would be to allow the Charity Commission to consider the question of public benefit.

Bob Spink: I am sure that before the hon. Gentleman moves on he would want to clear up for the House that prayingthat is, prayeris a wonderful activity and is helpful to society at large. I am sure that he would not wish to demur from that point.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that people do enjoy emotional and perhaps physical benefit from being prayed for. The difficulty is that some people will not know that they are being prayed forby a closed order, for exampleand it is impossible for us, or the Charity Commission, to test the quality of that prayer. The quality of the prayer might have been poor in the case that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) quoted.

Andrew Turner: No, I have not got any such evidence. I have given the examplethere are othersof organisations that have been excluded from charitable status because of the way in which they behave. There are other arguments relating to the Charity Commission's interpretative papershall I sayon how it might exercise its discretion. The position paper, Public Benefit: the Charity Commission's approach is secular in tone and states that public benefit must be assessed
	in the light of modern conditions
	and that keeping up with modern society is required if a charity is not to have its charitable status revoked. Some religions are quite concerned because they are trying to advance a better world than modern society. If they are to keep up with modern society, in many cases that will mean that they are not to aspire to a higher level, but to descend to a lower level than the ideal.
	I have been given the example of a Muslim group that may oppose abortion on the grounds of Islamic teaching. There is also the example of the Scottish chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain being forced out of office from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations because he stated orthodox Muslim views on sexual morality. I am concerned that those modern interpretations will be embraced by the Charity Commission and used as a means of reducing the accessibility of religious organisations to charitable status.

John Grogan: I missed Thought for the Day, which I rather enjoy, this morning, but I feel that I have more than made up for it by listening to some of the interesting contributions over the past half an hour. I am inspired by the Prime Minister's assertion that we are best when we are boldest and it is in that spirit that I want to discuss amendment No. 1. I always think that having amendment No. 1 shows a certain keenness. Together with various progressively minded colleagues in the House, I tabled the amendment in July. I cannot say that I have checked the wording with No. 10, but, in a modest sort of way, it is in the audacious spirit that the Prime Minister calls on his Ministers to display.
	The amendment does not attempt to define public benefit; it merely attempts to ensure a robust application of that test of public benefit by the Charity Commission. For the first time, it would give the Charity Commission a statutory base to consider questions of access to public benefit, undue restrictions, and chargesin some cases fairly high chargesmade by charities in return for their services. The supporters of the amendment are not trying to say that, for example, independent schools should not be able to claim charitable status. We are saying, as I said on Second Reading, and as we say in Yorkshire, You shouldn't get summat for nowt. The value that independent schools, for example, get from their charitable status is 100 million. We would just like the Charity Commission to be able to encourage them to provide more community benefit for that charitable status.
	I congratulate the Minister on being open to discussions on the Bill over the summer and the autumn. I think that he will argue, among other things, that the amendment is unnecessary because the sentiments that it upholds are already incorporated in the concept of public benefit and the Charity Commission will be able, for example, to consider questions of undue restrictions. I want to put three points before the House to explain why I am doubtful about that and then put three questions to the Minister. Perhaps he can help to reassure me on some of those doubts.
	First, there is the legal base of charity law. Without detaining the House for long, I think that most lawyers would say that the available case law is pretty sparse. Andrew Phillips, an eminent charity lawyer, wrote a few paragraphs that sum that up:
	As the Charity Commission lawyers know only too well, at the very best the absence of any inclusion in the Bill of wording indicating the scope of the Public Benefit test will leave the Commission in very uncertain legal terrain when they confront, as they surely will, a few unreformed and intransigent charity hospitals and schools.
	Unless Parliament remedies thatand a modest amendment will be enough to give the judges clear discretionthe government are spoiling their own reform, which is potentially a valuable one.
	The legal reality, in the absence of that, is that the existing, limited case law, particularly Re Resch, leans in favour of an undemanding public interest test, making clear that there is likely to be sufficient public benefit if, for example, a hospital or school relives the exchequer and alternative state provisions, or indeed if it provides extra facilities for the user.
	What about the Charity Commissionthe regulatoritself? It has had a slightly ambiguous attitude towards my amendment. Andrew Hind, its chief executive, spoke of a worrying lack of clarity in the underlying case law, and he confirmed that phrase to me in a conversation just a couple of weeks ago. Geraldine Peacock, who was chair of the commission, said that overriding any public school's charitable status would not be possible because the Bill would not alter decisions based on case law. However, the new chair of the commission, Dame Suzi Leather, has taken a different approach. She says that she will apply the test robustly and has talked about holding seminars with stakeholders in which there will be a discussion of contemporary social mores, as she puts its, and the way in which public benefit might be defined in the modern day. Although the question of precisely how contemporary social mores would weigh in the balance against the weight of case law was somewhat left hanging in the air at the parliamentary briefing last week, I acknowledge that there are tensionsperhaps creative tensionsin the commission.
	What about the voluntary sector? It, too, has taken a somewhat ambiguous position. When the amendment was tabled, Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, warmly welcomed it. He said that it would ensure clarity. He said:
	We hope that the government accepts this amendment or comes forward with its own amendment, agreed with the Charity Commission.
	Campbell Robb, director of public policy of the NCVO, went further. As late as September, he wrote in  Charity Finance that
	the introduction of a clear and meaningful public benefit test is necessary to uphold public trust and confidence in the charity. To this end we would like to see the Bill amended to see clarity around public benefit, especially in areas where high fees are being charged.
	Hon. Members should remember the name Campbell Robb because a month later the NCVO issued a more ambiguous press release saying that my amendment might be one way of providing the necessary clarity, but that holding seminars and a review after three years, rather than five years, might be another way. That was released on 16 October, and on 18 October, I was pleased to seeit is always good to see public servants doing wellthat Campbell Robb was appointed director general of the office of the third sector in the Cabinet Office on a salary of 100,000 a year. I wish him well, but gently reflect on what has happened. Incidentally, I have received a whole host of faxes from voluntary organisations saying that they wished that the NCVO had maintained its original position, including the Royal London Society for the Blind and Community Matters.

John Grogan: I am sure that Campbell Robb will be a very capable civil servant.
	I was in the middle of my list of voluntary organisations, which also included the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and NCH, the children's charity. Those organisations and many others took a rather different view from the final line of the NCVO.
	To answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), it is good that civil servants and members and officers of voluntary organisations have close associations with the House and the Government. However, there is a continuing debate in the voluntary sector on how independent of government that sector should be. On reflection, perhaps it was not a good idea that Campbell Robb, director of policy at the NCVO, which at one stage was trying to win concessions from the Government, should already be on secondment to the Government one day a week. That has started a debate at the NCVO.

John Grogan: This is the argument of unintended consequences. It will be the job of the Charity Commission to decide, case by case, whether a charity is worthy of that status. Nothing in my amendment and nothing that is suggested by the Government will take away from that responsibility. Many charities charge high fees, including one that has been mentioned to me, which deals with autistic children. Clearly, such charities provide a public benefit, and the Charity Commission will be able to make that assessment.
	The Minister will no doubt argue that undue restriction is inherent in the concept of public benefit, and the Charity Commission can already make such a judgment, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot argue on the one hand that the concept of public benefit assumes that the Charity Commission is able to weigh these matters, and on the other hand suggest that if the Bill is more explicit, it will lead to unintended consequences.
	Having expressed my doubts about my hon. Friend the Minister's position, I shall pose three questions to him, which might help to clarify matters. First, does he agree that the Charity Commission can and should consider matters of undue restriction and level of fees charged when it considers whether a particular charity passes the public benefit test?
	Secondly, what sort of public benefit should fee-paying schools, especially independent schools, provide to demonstrate their charitable status? Would a token sharing of playing fields, or even an expansion of scholarships on a selective basiscontemporary social mores in all parties are against an expansion of selectionbe enough? Should there not be a real sharing of resources and perhaps of teaching time with the wider community? That was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in a seminal speech in July, when he told the national youth parliament:
	I want to ensure that private schools work more closely with the state sector, sharing facilities and expertise; with the private schools' greater resources doing much more to improve the life chances of all the children in their community.
	Finally, the coalition between the NCVO and the Charity Commission in July, which fairly unambiguously supported the clause, has somewhat fractured. There is now division, with some supporting my hon. Friend and some taking a different view and supporting the amendment. Sometimes the best one can hope for in politics is to live to fight another day. I hope my hon. Friend is right and the public benefit test will be robust, as it is set out in the Bill. If not, I understand that there will be a review in three years. Will the review explicitly cover the issue of undue restriction and whether the Charity Commission has in practice been able to take that into account when making its determinations?
	I have two other things to say. I reflect that it may be only once every quarter of a century that the House grapples with charity law and public benefit tests. If the review in three years shows that there is a need to revisit the concept of public benefit, it will require a particularly determined Minister to do that. I received a letter from Christopher Price, who was a Labour MP in the 1970s. He refers to a Commons Select Committee in 1974 that unanimously recommended a robust test of public benefit. The Committee concluded that that recommendation
	accords both with the spirit in which many of our sixteenth century public schools were founded and with a widespread feeling today that charitable activities should not be manifestly devoted to privilege or exclusiveness. We would therefore expect that our new test of 'purposes beneficial to the community' would only admit to charitable status those institutions which manifestly devote the education they provide towards meeting a range of clear educational needs throughout the whole community.
	Those sentiments were present in this House 40 years ago.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is right and that I am wrong. I began by mentioning the Prime Minister, who sometimes says that he wishes that he had gone further with particular reforms. I hope that the Minister assumes greater office in future, when I am sure he will introduce many reforms, but I also hope that in years to come he does not reflect on this, his first big ministerial job, which has given him the chance to reform charities law. I heard him speak passionately in Grimsby on the 50th anniversary of Crosland's book, The Future of Socialism, which touches on charity law and independent schools. When he looks back in years to come, I hope that he does not think, I wish I had been bolder on that occasion.

Ann Widdecombe: I will shortly, but I wish to amble a little further before doing so.
	I am worried about the inconsistency of ministerial statements about this matter. If a law or a provision in it that has given no trouble is suddenly removed, Ministers' words become important. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary said that removing the presumption of public benefit would raise the bar on religious, educational and poverty relief charities.  [Interruption.] I see that he disputes that. Let me therefore give him the  Hansard reference, which I happen coincidentally to have with me. It is 26 June 2006, volume 448, column 97. However, in Committee, he maintained that
	religious charities and organisations provide public benefit, and I see no reason why that should change.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 July 2006; c. 58.]
	Either the change raises the bar or it does not. Most of us fear that its purpose is to raise the bar.
	I have yet to hear a single argument from anyone against maintaining the status quo. It works. It has never been proved to cause any difficulty. There must therefore be a reason for removing it. If one removes a presumption in favour of religious charities, the inevitable implication is that one is trying to make life harder for them.

Alan Milburn: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)in debate. As her contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) have demonstrated, the issue of public benefit goes to the heart of what the Bill is about. The measure under discussion is easily the most significant change made by the legislation, and I also think that it is the most controversial. It is certainly the topic on which the House and the other place have expended most energy during the tortuous passage of the Bill over the past few years. Therefore, it is the issue that demands the greatest clarity.
	As the Joint Committee that I chaired to examine the Bill in draft form put it:
	Since the purpose of the Bill, according to the Minister
	at that time, that was my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)
	is to protect the charity brand, it is important that any new law on charity must properly deal with the issue of public benefit.
	Amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, is an honest attempt to do just thatto clarify what is meant by public benefit in the Bill. However, I do not think that his amendment is right or workable. My hon. Friend the Minister, who has already gone some way toward addressing the concerns not just of Labour Members or Members of this House as a whole, but of both Houses, will need to go a bit further in his concluding remarks. He will need to set out how the Government intend the public benefit test to operate in practice. This is a significant change not just for religion, but for the whole of the charitable sector.
	What is not in disputeamong Labour Members, at leastis the positive benefit that accrues from the introduction of such a test. I have to say, with alldue respect to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), that I am at a loss to understand what the Opposition's position is on public benefit, having listened at lengthI also listened to him at length on Second Readingto his somewhat tortuous and occasionally toe-curlingly embarrassing attempt to avoid the question of whether the Opposition support the concept. If he gets an opportunity to do so, perhaps he will clarify the Opposition's position. If I may, I shall offer a small piece of political advice. I should have expected a party that nowadays seeks to claim that mantle of modernitynotwithstanding the concerns of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about the modern worldto welcome with no ambiguity what most people think is a long overdue modernisation of charity law.
	If we can get the public benefit test right, as I believe we can, it could clarify an area of charity law that every Member knows fine well has been greatly disputed for many centuries, including in the courts. Perhaps even more importantly, it would introduce a healthy dose of common sense into a complex area of charity law. We have to face a very simple fact: what the public think of as a charity and what we define in law as a charity are sometimes at variance. That is why, when asked, only 15 per cent. of the public believe, for example, that a charity such as Tate Modern is indeed a charity. Even fewer believe that Eton is, or indeed should be, a charitybut it is.
	So there are issues that we must address, not least in order to sustain what my hon. Friend the Member for Slough rightly called the charity brand, and its reputation now and in future. To be frank, it is in any case right that charitable status, since it accrues significant benefits, should be earned and not simply assumed. After all, organisations that are charities enjoy high levels of public support precisely because they are assumed to provide a meaningful benefit to the public. So in that sense, the good name of charities is at least as important as their good works.
	There is a further important considerationa financial considerationwhich my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) touched on in an intervention a moment ago. Charities do notjust receive generous donations from the public individually; they also receive pretty generous financial support from the public collectively. For example, in the latest tax year charities attracted tax relief worth almost 1.9 billion, which is a pretty significant pot of public expenditure. Nowadays, nobodyperhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight; I do not knowexpects public money to be doled out like a free good. It rightly comes with some strings attached. The public have the right to know what they are getting out for what they are putting in. Charities cannot be exempt from those disciplines.

Alan Milburn: I shall come to that, and I have a point or two to put to my hon. Friend the Minister about it. First, however, let me quote another part of Mr. Jonathan Shepherd's letter. He wrote
	indirect public benefit is not enough on its own: there must be direct benefit to the public or to a significant section of it.
	So we are all agreed. The Government agree; I think that now, under its new leadership, the Charity Commission agrees; and the Independent Schools Council agrees. The problem is that persuading the sort of recalcitrant school that the hon. Gentleman has identified, or for that matter a recalcitrant private sector hospitalI have to say that there is more than a handful of them if the evidence given to the joint Committee is anything to go bypersuading, that is, the recalcitrant few rather than the noble many, to demonstrate direct and public benefit in exchange for the advantages that they gain from charitable status, requires any test to be clear and understandable to all concerned. At present I am not convinced that the test is clear and understandable, and I am sure that that is what led my hon. Friend the Member for Selby to table his amendment.
	The problem with the amendment is that in seeking to introduce clarification, it risks causing more confusion. Although my hon. Friend cited parallel Scottish law, the wording of his amendment is subtly but significantly different from the form of words used in Scotland. The new charity law there refers to the need to ensure that charities are not unduly restrictive in the way in which they guarantee public benefit, so allowing a balanced consideration of benefits against disbenefits. The amendment, however, refers to any undue restriction, which I think would make such a balanced judgment more difficult to achieve. Indeed, I should be surprised if that wording did not cause a learning disability charity that none the less charged for its services to find itself failing the public benefit test, thereby risking the loss of its charitable status. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want ambiguous wording to produce such a result.
	I do not believe that my hon. Friend's amendment does the trick. My hon. Friend the Minister has moved the Bill forward substantially, but although the proposal to review the operation of the law after three years rather than five is welcome, I do not think that it does the trick either. To me it seems rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
	The Bill gives us an opportunity to deal with charity law. My hon. Friend is right: it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is a rare event for charity law to be changed by ParliamentI believe that the last occasion was 15 years ago, and the penultimate occasion was probably 20 years before thatand unless my hon. Friend knows something that I do not know about proposals for legislative changes in the future, I should be surprised if we are given another crack of the whip in the imminent future. So we need to get the public benefit provision right now.
	That is what led the Joint Committee to conclude that
	while a detailed statutory definition of public benefit would be too inflexible, nonetheless there is a need for a more explicit definition of public benefit in connection with the Bill.
	And of course clause 4 requires the Charity Commission to issue guidance for that purpose. The problem is that we do not have the guidance before us today, so it is difficult for the House to know exactly what it is being asked to support.
	Indeed, I was struck by an article by Dame Suzi Leather, the new chair of the Charity Commission, in  The Guardian last week in which she argued that the public benefit test was a slippery concept. That is not to say that, having spoken to Dame Suzi, I am in any doubt about her determination to see the public benefit test applied vigorouslya view that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations interestingly now shares, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows. Indeed she says in her article that fee-charging charities could be expected
	to assess and report the value of the tangible benefits they bring as well as the value of their tax breaks.
	I welcome that. It is a significant step towards clarity in how the public benefit test will be applied, but there is many a slip twixt cup and lip, as the House knows. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in replying to the debate, can give a very clear indication as to whether he agrees with Dame Suzi's proposal and how, more generally, he expects public benefit to operate in practice.
	Short of a Government amendment, which we do not have, it is important for the Minister to put the Government's intention on the record, not least so that the Charity Commission and the courts are left in no doubt that public benefit is intended to be direct and meaningful. If he can do that, he can kill several birds with one stone. First, he will bring clarity and certaintyimportant for the whole sector, which we want to growto a vital modernisation of charity law. Secondly, that could help to foster more real partnerships between the public and the private sector in health and education, for the benefit of both patients and pupils. Thirdly, he will be able to offer many of us the assurances that we need to give our wholehearted support to this part of the Bill, just as we already do to the rest of it.
	This is a good Bill, which is long overdue. The introduction of a public benefit test is a very good thing, which will make a profound difference to the operation of the charitable sector. I welcome what the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have done thus far; I just ask them to go that one little bit further.

Martin Horwood: As the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has just said, this is a very good Bill and the concept of public benefit is central to it. Rather than citing older Charity Commission reports, it is more useful to consider the commission's current guidance on how it plans to implement the Bill in future. The commission's website, which is a fertile source of material for this debate, contains a briefing, issued this month, on the approach to public benefit and how it will be treated. The commission promises to apply the public benefit test robustly, and that is welcome. Perhaps I detect the hand of the Minister in that form of words, which is welcome.
	The guidance also contains some slightly more alarming words, which underline the fact that the issue is a moveable feasta slippery concept, as the right hon. Gentleman put it. For example, the briefing contains what appears to be an entirely new concept of the need for continuing improvement. It states:
	Our aim will be to ensure both that charities demonstrate public benefit in what they do and, beyond that, continue to increase the value they bring to the communities they serve.
	That seems to go beyond the Bill and add a dangerous new dimension, because it puts an obligation on any charity to prove that it has satisfied the public benefit test and later to prove that it has increased the public benefit. That is perhaps a similar example to the one cited by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on modern laws, with the Charity Commission going a little further than the Bill, and also perhaps failing to issue the best possible guidance. The Minister with responsibility for the third sector will have to be on his mettle in managing the implementation of the public benefit test.
	The concept is slippery. As the right hon. Member for Darlington also noted, there are areas of spectacular confusion, not least in respect of whether the Bill changes the law on public benefit at all. Many peopleincluding Liberal Democrats in this House and the other placeargue that it does, but mynoble Friend Lord Phillips said, in a letter today to  The Guardian:
	Many leading charity lawyers beg to differ. Without some leverage in the bill, the judges are not free to innovate, especially as the leading case law endorses the status quo, where the school or hospital can claim charitable status if it saves the taxpayer money or provides extra facilities unavailable in the state sector.
	I confess that I am not a lawyer. Although my interpretation does not entirely match his, my noble Friend is an extremely eminent charity lawyer and the fact that he thinks that that is an arguable case shows that the Bill in its current state leaves matters very unclear. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said that the NCVO and the Charity Commission appear to be shifting their ground slightly about whether further clarification is needed. Earlier this year, the NCVO issued a briefing that stated:
	According to Guidance published by the Charity Commission, charities that charge high fees for their services merely have to show that 'the less well-off are not wholly excluded from any possible benefits, direct or indirect'.
	NCVO does not believe this goes far enough ... However, the Charity Commission itself has said that this is a complex area of the law and it would like further clarification from Government on this issue and particularly in relation to fee-paying charities.

Martin Horwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I shall come to amendment No. 126 in due course.
	I was about to say that I have consulted some of the outstanding private educational establishments in my constituency, such as Cheltenham Ladies college, the National Star College for Disabled Youth, Cheltenham college and Dean Close school. I tested out the amendment to see whether those institutions felt that it represented some great threat to their charitable status, and they all thought that raising the bar was a good idea. Given their excellent public service record of sharing facilities with the wider community, they did not believe that it would damage them, and they also believed it would helpfully raise the bar for smaller, perhaps less reputable, organisations that were more or less indistinguishable from businesses in their approach. I am not saying that there is a large number of them, but raising the bar on public benefit would help to clarify that such organisations need to act charitably in order to earn the considerable benefits of charitable status.
	There is a good example in my constituency of a small private nursery and pre-preparatory school that underwent some anxiety about whether it would pass a stricter public benefit test. It wondered whether it would be able to share any facilities with the wider community. It was a problem, as it did not offer scholarships in the requisite age range, so it had to think hard about the threat of a stricter public benefit test. In the event, it decided to share music teaching with neighbouring state schools. That seems an excellent result and it happened on account of the threat of a test stricter than the status quo.
	The question remains whether the Bill in its present form contains such a test. I do not believe that it does, but I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I wonder whether he will say that there are sufficient incentives, either in law or from the commission, to encourage organisations and institutions such as that school to improve the quality of their public service.
	On amendment No. 126, I listened carefully, as ever, to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. One of the Bill's central principles is that it removes the current archaic definitions of charitable purpose, which date back to the mediaeval era and are simply no longer fit for purposethough I hesitate to use that rather new Labour phrase. The right hon. Lady said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but the overwhelming consensus in the charity sector is that current charity law is broke, at least to the extent that the Bill deals with many areas of charity law and is designed to reform and improve them. That is precisely why it has had such widespread support [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) shouts out Not religion from a sedentary position, but I refer him to his colleague in the other place, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who said in support of a level playing field for all charities:
	What we have achieved in the Bill is a delicate balance as regards the public benefit issue. Therefore, for the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to talk about blanket advantages in the circumstances is not right. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, we are in fact creating a level playing field here, in which all charities have to meet a public benefit test, no matter what their purposes are, and must do so on a continuing basis.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2005; Vol. 673, c. 154.]
	There is, in effect, no divine right to charitable status. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Royal British Legion, St. John Ambulance, Save the Children and so forth will all have to pass a public benefit test, and so will the Churches.
	Some have put forward thoughtful arguments suggesting that all this will prove detrimental to the Churches. One such argument is that religion does not have a provable public benefit. That is, in effect, arguing that because the charity or organisation is expected to fail the test, it should not have to take it. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others have mentioned, it is equally difficult in some circumstances to imagine how art, sport or even education can provably increase public benefitbut that is the purpose of case law and the purpose of the Charity Commission in giving guidance.
	Indeed, help was provided by the example of humanist organisations earlier. They achieved charitable status in the end by suggesting that they aided the mental and moral improvements of mankind. My guess is that most religious charities would be able to argue robustly that they demonstrated comparable public benefits. Most accepted world religions set out the golden rule of doing unto others as they would expect others to do to themselves. That is clearly to the benefit of the wider community. The example of the Church of Scientology was also mentioned earlier. It was rejected under current law by the skin of its teeth, only because it did not have an act of worship. Without the public benefit test, there would be a real risk of religious organisations that were undoubtedly religious but harmful securing charitable status.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked for a specific example of an organisation that might fail the test. I offer her Satanism, which, under current case law, would meet the definition of a religion. It unambiguously has an act of worship and a supreme being and it obeys the supernatural principle that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) supported earlier, but I am sure that it would not pass a public benefit test.

Martin Horwood: If the right hon. Lady is referring to existing case law she should be reassured because the charity commissioners have made it explicit, first, that their priority in testing public benefit is fee-paying organisationsas is clear in their guidance and has been the subject of much debateand, secondly, that existing case law will guide their hand in judging the public benefit test. Under existing case law there is no evidence whatever that the Commission will become an army of political correctness trying to persecute the Churches.

Martin Horwood: To give the right hon. Lady an absolutely straight answer, no I cannot give the precise example for which she asks, but that does not change the argument for a level playing field for all charities, especially as so much of it is based on existing case law. She should be reassured by the fact that I cannot find an example.
	Undue restriction, as proposed by amendmentNo. 1, will not threaten religious charities either. I know of no religion that is closed to converts, so there would be no undue restriction for religious charities. The fundamental principle is that this is in large part an excellent new Bill, which will establish a level playing field on a contemporary basis for all modern charities.

Alun Michael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is extremely knowledgeable and made a good contribution in Committee. I am pleased to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who by being modestly bold has created the opportunity for an important debate.
	Members on both sides of the House will be pleased about the appointment of Campbell Robb as director of the Office of the Third Sector. From his work in the House with MPs from all parties, he knows that the role of the Office of the Third Sector is not just to do with structures or bureaucracy; it covers the relationships between the Government, the third sector and Parliament. It is a welcome development.
	Many people in the charity sector and Parliament have engaged with the question of what public benefit is, and have been tempted to attempt a more precise definition in law. I, too, have been tempted down that road; we discussed it in Committee when the Minister engaged positively with the issue. He has kept his promise to give careful thought to all the options. The trouble is that it is always possible that the courtsor, in future, the charity tribunalwill be limp in how they interpret the intentions of Parliament. Our experience is that case law in the field of charity is sparse. For that reason, MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby understandably ask what the point is of removing the old presumption and requiring that public benefit be demonstrated clearly by charities, particularly those that charge significant fees for entrance, participation or services, if the requirement does not bite until a judgment is reached in a test case in 158 years' time.
	Either we must be sure that the law and Parliament's intentions are crystal clear, or we must be sure that those intentions will be given effect robustly and effectively by the Charity Commission, which must work sensibly and progressively but without undue delay. The real downside of choosing to include a more stringent definition is that it would create a risk of unintended consequences. An enormous amount of legislation on the statute book was intended to give tight and precise effect to a definition or requirement, and was supposed to provide limpid clarity, but turned out to be doubtful at best, or did not stand the test of time. Animal welfare legislation has been a running sore for just that reason.
	Let us face it, some forms of words are precise and clear, but require constant reinterpretation. In my view, far from being a weakness, that is a strength. Who is my neighbour?the words resonate down the ages, and after 2,000 years they are still clear and precise, yet they are as challenging as they were to the young lawyer to whom they were directed. They provoke debate just as they did when they were first spoken, and they have required careful interpretation in every age. The same applies to the words public benefit, and that is why I strongly resist both the introduction of a more precise definition, and the amendment with which my hon. Friend the Member for Selby provoked this constructive debate.
	Our discussion has been worth while, but it has shown that the simple test of public benefit, if interpreted and applied in the existing legal framework in a modern context, is the right and simple way forward. Clearly, the meaning of modern will be different in decades and centuries to come, but the principle is clear. The question is whether the public benefit test will be applied robustly to charities that have been able to hide behind the historic presumption, or whether they will ignore the challenge. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is no longer in the Chamber, but I would like to say to her that, as a Christian, I think that Christian charities should be subject to the same test as the rest, and we should welcome that. The use of the public benefit test will depend on how the Charity Commission interprets the law, and not on how Ministers spell it out, although the Minister's reply in this debate will clearly be important in setting out the basis of Parliament's view.
	When it comes to implementation, the Charity Commission's view will be crucial. The commission is accountable to Parliament and the public for the way in which it interprets its responsibilities. I asked the chief charity commissioner how she and her advisers envisage their remit once the Charities Bill reaches the statue book. She had already spelled out her response to the Bill in the article referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), and I think that she correctly interpreted Parliament's intentions. I particularly liked her comment that the public benefit requirement is a call to innovate. She is clearly using the Bill as an opportunity to allow not just Government, Parliament and the commission, but the sector itself, to explore ideas and principles vigorously in a modern context. It is important to mention the brief for MPs, which should be lodged in the Library for future reference, because the notes on how the public interest requirement will be interpreted by the commission are extremely important.
	It is clear that organisations will not suddenly be required, overnight, to demonstrate that they provide public benefit, or to rethink their priorities, but there is a clear expectation that charities that previously benefited from the presumption will engage with the issues and, through their attitudes and actions, respond to the change in the law. They will need to show that they provide public benefit but, to be fair, many charities that operate under the existing presumption already demonstrate that they provide public benefit. That is the unwritten deal, and the public clearly understand that charitable status provides reward and encouragement for those who provide public benefit. Each charity must simply ask itself whether it provides public benefit in a way that justifies its charitable status, and whether it shows that benefit clearly, so that the requirements of transparency and accountability are met.
	Indirect benefit is not likely to be enough in itself. The Charity Commission believes that the law, as it stands, makes it clear that it will not normally be possible to demonstrate public benefit through indirect benefits alone, such as savings in public expenditure that result from the charity's provision of education or health services. It is therefore clear that the benefit to the public must generally derive from the organisation's primary charitable purposes, rather than any secondary activity. Charities that were previously presumed to provide public benefit must show that they satisfy the law, and the Charity Commission must be satisfied that they have done so. Charities that charge high fees for their services must take active and transparent measures to ensure that someone who is eligible to benefit from those services has a reasonable chanceto do so. It is sensible that charities should have time to adjust, but it is reasonable to expect them to engage with the changes.
	The commissionnot the Governmentwill make the final decisions about charitable status on a case-by-case basis. Their decisions will depend on the circumstances of individual fee-charging institutions following the criteria that I have described. If, after the Bill's implementation, the Government's intentions on public benefit are not fully reflected in practice, a review of the legislation must be instigated as soon as parliamentary time allows. In any event, the Minister has made it clear that a review of the public benefit requirements will be initiated three years after the Bill's implementation.
	I asked the chief charity commissioner, Dame Suzi Leather, whether I had interpreted correctly the Bill's requirements. Would the commission be reasonable, but firm and robust, in ensuring that all charities fulfil those requirements in their day-to-day performance in a realistic period of time? She answered, Yes. Only the presumption was changing and organisations that have not grappled with the issues until now, because they were not required to do so, must show they have done so. The change will not be new for the many charities that have already adapted to the change, which is welcome. All charities, however, must adapt now that the change in the law has become clear.
	The commission has published on its website an indicative timetable outlining the steps that it would take to act on the public benefit requirement following Parliament's approval of the Bill. That indicative programme makes clear the commission's intentions, and it should be available in the Library so that hon. Members can refer to it. Provided that the Bill completes its passage in the expected time scale, in November, the citizens' forum will begin research on public perceptions and expectations; in January next year, the commission will launch a three-month consultation; next September, it will begin a pilot assessment of public benefit, producing detailed guidance for specific types of charities and consulting on the guidance; and in summer 2008, it will report progress to Parliament.
	The chief charity commissioner stated her understanding that the Bill gives the commission a clear role in ensuring public trust and confidence in charity. I believe that that answers the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby in his amendment. The commission regards the public benefit requirement as a key component that makes a clear and explicit link between public benefit and charitable status, and which strengthens public confidence in the charity sector. It will apply the public benefit test rigorously to ensure that that goal is achieved, and fee-charging charities will be expected to demonstrate how they provide benefits.
	I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby wants to gain as much as possible from our debate, but I am sure that the response from the chief charity commissioner, the commission itself and the Minister will allow him to reach the right place, which is not only as far as the Minister could go but as far as he should go.

Bob Spink: The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) will agree that there are none so generous as Yorkshire folk. He will forgive me for providing the more common version of the Yorkshireism that he cited to the HouseIf tha does owt for nowt tha does it for thissen. That is the opposite of the selfless work undertaken by many volunteers for the wonderful charities that we are seeking to control in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 126 is straightforward as it simply retains the presumption that the advancement of religion is in the public benefit. The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) mentioned common sensemost people in the country would regard that proposal as simple common sense. However, the Bill would remove that time-honoured presumption and therefore represents a major change, and I suggest that it could seriously damage religious liberties and our traditions and even damage our benevolent and tolerant society.
	Moreover, the clause is entirely unwanted, at least by the majority of the public, who despise political correctness. Under the law as it stands, many worthwhile religious charities have been registered in the UK, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If a charity, even a religious charity, has been acting improperly and is found not to be acting in the public benefit, it can be deregistered. That has happened plenty of times, such as in the case of Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park mosque. Under the existing statutory regime, the Charity Commission has successfully regulated religious charities and does not, nor should it, challenge or question their underlying doctrinebut that is what the Bill will inevitably lead to, and it is wrong. The proposed, more aggressive approach of the Bill is unnecessary and could be yet another step towards destroying the traditions of our society.
	As we have heard, the commission states unequivocally that the public benefit must be assessed
	in the light of modern conditions
	and that keeping up with modern society is required if a charity is not to have its charitable status revoked. It is the word revoked that is so challenging and worrying. It means that the intention is to remove charitable status from some religious charities, and I wonder whether the Minister would spell out exactly which ones he is thinking of.
	Christian charities, of course, take guidance from the Bible, written in ancient Israel, but I happen to believe, and so do many people in the House and in the country, that that Bible is still as relevant today, and its words as meaningful today, as they ever were. The Bill gives the commission massively increased powers. The current commissioners may be good people, but how can we be sure that they will always be benevolent and reasonable in the future? They will be required to make very subjective judgments about the ethos and ethics of different religions and religious activities. As there is nothing in the Bill that sets out any objective criteria for their judgment, their judgments will be subjective. How can they decide which religious groups are beneficial and which are not? On what criteria will they base that decision?
	In any event, why should the commissionor, indeed, the law in interpreting the Billbe rational and consistent when even the Government are not rational and consistent in proposing the Bill? The Government's statements on this issue have been confused and contradictory. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, on Second Reading in this House the Minister said that removing the presumption of public benefit would raise the bar on religious, educational and poverty relief charities, while in Committee he maintained that
	religious charities and organisations provide public benefit, and I see no reason why that should change.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 July 2006; c. 58.]
	Those statements cannot both be true. So the Minister has himself been inconsistent in presenting the arguments for his own Bill.
	Time is short, so I shall curtail my remarks. I believe that we should not inflict this clause on good people who are simply serving their communities through a religious charity. Political correctness must not become the new test of charitable status. I commend amendment No. 126 to the House.

Edward Miliband: It has been an interesting debate with contributions from distinguished Members of the House, including the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), my right hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and other hon. Members. In the time that I have available, I want to deal with both amendments.
	First, I want to bring together the questions of religion and of education, and the central burden of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She asked, Why? Why should we have the principle that all charities must pass the test of public benefit, without a presumption in favour of a few? My answer to her is, fairness. Whether we are talking about the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Eton college or a religious charity, all should have to pass the public benefit test. That seems a pretty basic principle.
	The right hon. Lady might say, I agree with your principle, but I think that the practice is going to overwhelm the principle. I am really worried about what this will mean for religious charities. That was the second part of her remarks. I hope that I can reassure her on those points. First, I want to reassure her that removing the presumption that the advancement of religion provides public benefit is not intended to lead to a narrowing down of the range of religious activities that are considered charitable. Nor is the process intended to be onerous for individual religious institutions.
	The right hon. Lady talked about social mores. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), not for the first time in my experience, made an excellent speech on that point. Case law is the foundation of what we are debating in the Charities Bill and of the legislation on which we are moving forward. We have not put it all on the record in the Bill because that is simply not possiblethat is the complexity of charity law. Yes, modern social mores play a rolethe courts have determined thatbut the foundation is case law.

Edward Miliband: I apologise for not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, but I need to make progress.
	The commission has already begun discussions with the major religions of our country precisely to give them reassurance. I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will accept my reassurance, too.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has tabled amendment No. 1 because it gives us the chance to talk about another aspect of public benefit. On Second Reading, I set out several principles of the Government's approach to the charitable status of fee-charging institutions, including private schools, and I want to reiterate them today. I say in passing to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that while I think that the bar will be raised, especially for fee-charging institutions that were not subject to the scrutiny of the Charity Commission because of the presumption, I do not believe that I said the words that she attributed to me. However, perhaps we can take that up on another occasion.
	Our first principle is that all charities must passthe public benefit test and be continually tested on that by the Charity Commission. The removal of the presumption will lead to that big change. The presumption meant not that there was no public benefit test in all circumstances, but that existing charities were not scrutinised by the commission. The measure is designed to bring about consistency, as the commission has confirmed. The history of this is that when the register of charities was established in 1960, private schools were automatically put on it if they had previously been granted charitable tax relief by the Inland Revenue.
	Our second principle is that indirect benefitthe claim that private schools save money for the taxpayer by educating pupils, for exampleshould not be enough to justify charitable status. That is right, and the view is shared by not only Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but the Independent Schools Council, which says that indirect benefit savings to the taxpayer should not be enough, given that private schools enjoy the benefits that come with charitable status.
	Some hon. Members asked what private schools will have to providemy hon. Friend the Member for Selby asked whether token benefits would be enough. The Charity Commission will have to make a case-by-case examination, but reassurance is available on the point of principle. The commission said in its briefing earlier this week:
	It will not normally be possible to demonstrate public benefit through indirect benefits alone, such as savings in public expenditure.
	The schools must thus normally provide direct benefits. However, can those benefits be simply for wealthy people who can afford the fees? Again, the commission's briefing helpfully indicates the way in which it wants to move forward. It says:
	Charities which charge relatively high fees must demonstrate accessibility to those facilities or services.
	Even at this late stage, I hope that when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight winds up the debate, he will announce the Conservative party's conversion to such a basic principle of fairness.
	The benefits will need to be extended beyond the narrow class of people who are able to afford fees and it is unlikely that a token provision will be sufficient. To answer a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, the Government believe that the benefits should be direct and meaningful. Generally, we believe that a school that does a range of things to widen access through partnerships with state schools and educational initiatives in the local communityI pay tribute to the many private schools that do thiswill find it easier to demonstrate a public benefit.
	Our third principle is that the Bill will raise the bar for private schools. I tell the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that the key point is that this is about fee-charging institutions that previously benefited from the presumption that charitable status was automatically conferred on them. That is why I do not believeif I said this, I misspokethat the bar will be raised for religious charities or charities dealing with poverty. This raising of the bar relies on a Charity Commission with a robust plan to implement it, as the Charity Commission has shown. It is embarking on a worthwhile process, involving the development of principles around the implementation of public benefit. It has promised to look specifically at the fee-charging sector, and it will consult the public about their attitudes. In the case of fee-charging charities, there has not been a directly relevant case for almost40 years, as we heard, so the commission is right to develop its approach by consulting the public, taking account of the passage of time since  re Resch. The Bill seeks to establish confidence in the charity brand.
	The fourth principle of the Government's approachagain, this is importantis that it is for the Charity Commission to take individual decisions about particular institutions. This is necessary because a rural private school miles from a neighbouring state school has a different ability to co-operate with the state sector than an urban private school, for example. Similarly, the private school for disabled children or those with learning difficulties, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned, may face different pressures, compared with other types of private schools.
	All those differences need to be taken into account by the commission. That has made framing a specific amendment to the Bill hard, as has been found by many hon. Members who have tried to do so. The dilemma is between an amendment so wide as to add little to existing law or so precise as to have unintended effects. Over the summer we considered the matter and we were not able to find an amendment that satisfied all the demands.
	The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, if I may say so, falls into the first category. It does not add to the existing law. His amendment states that in determining whether a body provides public benefit, regard must be had to
	any undue restriction on obtaining that benefit.
	The nature of the public benefit test, though, is that charitable status is not established if relief is accorded to a selected few out of a larger number equally willing and able to take advantage of itin other words, if there is undue restriction on those able to obtain that benefit.
	My hon. Friend said in a recent letter explaining his amendment that the Charity Commission should have to weigh public benefit provided by the school against the restricted access to those benefits. I agree with that, as I have said. From our point of view, the amendment is unnecessary, but we want to see proper implementation of the principles. That is why we will review the effect of the public benefit provisions not five years, but three years after implementation, and if they are not having the intended effect and are failing to raise the bar, we will consider all necessary options. My hon. Friend is concerned to ensure that regard must be had to any undue restriction on benefits. As I have made clear, this is part of the public benefit test. It will be part of the review to determine whether our intentions have been met.
	This is a good Bill and we should resist the two amendments.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposalof business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [(26 June].
	 Government amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 118, 13 to 16, 119, 120, 17 to 57, 121, 58 to 87 and 89 to 116 agreed to.
	 Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Hilary Armstrong: The Bill underpins a vibrant and exciting sector, which has a huge growth rate. Since it was conceived, nearly 30,000 new charities have been registered, along with more than 30,000 linked charities. In total, charities spend over 30 billion a year on good causes, and employ more than 600,000 people. There are more than 1 million trustees for such organisationsvolunteers who give up their time, and money from their own pockets, to help others. Many Members are involved in charities and causes that are dear to our hearts. It is up to us to ensure that they are regulated in a modern, efficient and easy-to-understand manner.
	Although there has been lively and thorough debate about some of the more controversial areas, there seems to be a consensus in the House, in the sector, and among the public at large, that the Bill is a good thing. All Members in this House and Members in another place agreed that the legislation governing charities needed to be updated, and it has been reassuring to know that we were all working towards the same ends.
	The Charities Bill has been working its way through both Houses for rather a long time. It was conceived in 2002 in the Prime Minister's strategy unit and has been mentioned in no fewer than three Queen's Speeches. Between both Houses, it has enjoyed over 80 hours of debate, and it was considered in draft by a Joint Committee that was ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). Therefore, I think that we can safely say that it has been well scrutinised.
	The Bill provides, for the first time in English law, a full statutory definition of charity and charitable purposes. In doing so, it removes the centuries-old presumption that some purposesrelief of poverty, education and religionare for the public benefit. Removal of that presumption will not cancel the charitable status of poverty relief, or of educational or religious charities. But it will require those charities to show that they provide a public benefit, instead of that being simply taken for granted. That will put those charities on the same footing as all other charities, which already have to show

Hilary Armstrong: I was not going to be as contentious as thatI am trying to bring the House togetherbut my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many Labour Members have long sought to get international work on to the political agenda, and this Government are very proud of the fact that we have indeed got international development firmly on to the agenda. Indeed, even Opposition Front Benchers now want to support such efforts, so, despite what was said in the other place, we have seen real progress on that front in recent years.
	The Bill will put religious and educational charities and those dealing with poverty relief on the same footing as other charities, which already have to show, before they can be accepted as charities, that they provide a public benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) spelt out on Report the Government's view of public benefit.

Andrew Selous: I would be extremely grateful if the right hon. Lady confirmed that, as her colleague Lord Bassam of Brighton said in the Lords on 3 February 2005, the proselytising activities of religious charities will still be deemed to be a public benefit. In Committee on 4 July, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) said that he could offer reassurance so far as missionary work was concerned. Given that the Charity Commission will interpret these matters, I should like the right hon. Lady to put it on the record that proselytising activity will still be deemed to be a public benefit.

Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend is intent on enjoying himself tonight, and I do not blame him. I know how long he, too, has waited and worked for the Bill. He therefore has every right to enjoy its final passage through the House.
	Given the length of the Bill's life, it is also important to acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East(Paul Goggins) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) as the Ministers in charge of the Bill during this and previous Sessions, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) in chairing the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, but I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) who assisted me and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in our thinking on the Bill.
	I also thank the Charity Commission for its invaluable contribution to the Bill. Charity is at the heart of the Bill. A strong charitable sector is a sign of a healthy society, and it is our duty to maintain a safe, modern regulatory structure to surround it. The Charities Bill is a much-needed update to charity legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Turner: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words addressed to me and my hon. Friends on the Committee. I agree that the Bill has had the longest gestation of any of which I am aware. It has been scrutinised in the House of Lords twice and in this place once and a bit, as well as being scrutinised by the Joint Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was Chairman. I came to it late, and the Parliamentary Secretary came to it even later. At various points during the Committee stage we may have formed the view that we should not have started here, but here is where we did start, and I think that we have reached a satisfactory destination.
	I am particularly grateful for the reassurances from the Minister for the Cabinet Office about scrutiny. The Charity Commission will be an enormously strong and powerful quango that, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, will have power to revoke or indeed grant charitable status. There are concerns about how it will exercise that power, and it is good to know that a Select Committee will scrutinise it. I wish the right hon. Lady well in her discussions with Committee Chairmen.
	Let me first thank the Parliamentary Secretary. It was a pleasure to work with a Minister who listened carefully and sought honestly to deal with all the inquiries fired at him from all sidesincluding, on occasion, his ownin the best possible way and in the best possible traditions of this place. We want to achieve a good deal of consensus on Bills of this kind, and I think that in this case consensus was largely achieved, but it was not consensus for the sake of consensus; it was agreement on good legislation, and I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for helping us to achieve it.
	I thank the charities teamoriginally in the Home Office, subsequently in the Cabinet Officefor their assistance. They answered questions at short notice, and also replied to a multitude of letters. I thank the Charity Commission's staff, with whom I think it fair to say I have had robust discussions on a number of occasions: sometimes I have been persuaded, sometimes not. I thank the many charities that have contributedto proceedings on the Bill, and their representative organisations. Without evidence from charities large and small at grass-roots level, this would not have been such a good Bill. I particularly thank the Charity Law Association. One or two of the amendments that the Minister commended originated not from my pen, but from that of the association.
	I thank my colleagues who were members of the Committeemy hon. Friends the Members for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), some of whom have been present this afternoon. I also thank the Committee Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Finally, I pay particular tribute and give particular thanks to my researcher Tim Sheppard, who has now gone on to greater things but who saw me very wellat least, I thought sothrough the Committee stage.
	One or two minor issues remain, which we were unable to discuss on Report. In particular, there is the question of access to the tribunal. We are very pleased that there is to be a tribunal to provide an intermediate post between a Charity Commission decision and judicial review, but we are anxious about whether charities will be able to afford to face the commission in the tribunal. We do not want the commission to spend a lot of public money on lawyers when small charities do not want to spend charitable money on them. We are also anxious to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done in the tribunal. I hope that the Minister will have one or two things to say about that.
	The Minister for the Cabinet Office mentioned a review that would consider public benefit, and said that if there were not the evidence of public benefit that Ministers would like to see, they would consider what action was needed to put things back on track. She has committed herself to beginning that process within three years. If the Conservatives inherit such an inquiry or review, we will be happy to continue it and to take the results to legislation if necessary.
	I am, I must say, a little concerned about the fact that having worked as hard as we haveand, more important, given the hard work of so many other peoplewe are bringing forth what may turn out to be interim legislation. I hope that it will not be. I hope that the wishes and desires of the Government, the charity sector and Members on both sides of the House will be met successfully by the Bill. However, I am concerned that conflicting signals have been sent, even at Report stage, on exactly what the Bill means and, in particular, on public benefit. It is not satisfactory to leave to a quango, however well intentioned or distinguished its members, decisions not of administration, but of policy.
	I fear that the Minister has made comments that he hopes will be taken on board by the Charity Commission and interpreted as policy but that were never put before this House in the form of amendment or legislation. If the commission responds too well to Ministers' expressed wishes, or the Government try to smuggle amendments through in the form of statements of policy, wishes, desires and guidance, it will spend much more time than it would wish before the tribunal. This House is the place to make legislation: quangos are not. Their job is to implement and, where necessary, interpret legislation and we have not been entirely fair to the Charity Commission in leaving it with such a broad canvas and range of opinions as have been expressed today but not clearly represented in the wording of the Bill. That is my only reservation.
	The Bill is much improved by the effective scrutiny it has received, and it is a great improvement on the previous legislation. I am pleased to have been involved in it, and I thank the Minister for his assistance.

Alun Michael: I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has said to reinforce the commitment to early parliamentary scrutiny. That is one of the undertakings that have been given by Ministers that has helped to create the spirit of consensus and movement arising from the legislation.
	I wish also to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) on the exemplary way in which he has taken the Bill through the House. It is quite a challenge to take on a Bill such as this in the first stages of one's ministerial career, and he has done an outstanding job.
	The Bill will help to clarify the meaning of charitable purpose, as defined in clause 2. That definition is now clear and includes issues such as animal welfare, which many of us have wished to see expressly set out in legislation. Probably the most important aspect is the creation of a level playing field in the application of the public benefit test. That is an excellent development.
	The Bill takes the values of charity, which have been tried and tested over generations, and reinterprets them for a modern age. Fortunately, they have not been interpreted too narrowly, which was a danger had we over-amended the Bill, but in a way that will give the Charity Commission authority in taking its work forward. It is important that the commission ensures that fee-charging charities take active steps to mitigate the impact of fees and maximise the public benefit, as transparently as possible. The outcome of those steps must be to ensure that someone who is able to benefit from a charity's services and who is eligible to do so has a reasonable chance of doing so.
	I referred earlier to a conversation with the chief charity commissioner and she has confirmed that the words I am using correctly interpret her position, and I hope that that will be of some comfort to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). On method and timing, the chief commissioner confirmed that while the responsibility to meet the legal requirements and satisfy the commission lies with the trustees of each charity, she will encourage sectors to work with the commission to develop good practice guidelines and to work progressively towards clear standards and the ability to demonstrate how they are doing so. In other words, it is an engaged processa relationship with charities of a very positive sort.
	That is consistent with the concept of continual improvement that is now generally accepted in the sector as being right in principle and necessary to the achievement of proper accountability. I believe that it is a sensible and progressive development of the standards for which our charitable sector is renowned. There is a clear expectation of timely action, but with no harsh grinding of gears.
	That is why the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was wrong to imply that there was a degree of uncertainty, both in the Bill and about what the Charity Commission will do in interpreting it. The Charity Commission will not have to respond to Ministers or to their policy statements, and that is why I have been at pains to quote at some length what the chief charity commissioner has said about her understanding of what Parliament is doing to provide clear law.
	I believe that the Charity Commission has raised its game over the past few years. I now feel very confident that it will discharge robustly the responsibilities that Parliament is giving it, but with common sense and professionalism. Therefore, the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight are ill founded, and I hope that he will accept what the chief charity commissioner has said about her interpretation of the commission's remit from Parliament. That is a matter of emphasis, but an important one.
	In the forthcoming spending review, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will want to encourage the process of continual improvement in the sector, and to ensure that the Charity Commission is well equipped to drive that process forward. In the meantime, I am certain that the Bill serves charities well, without being too prescriptive about the definition of public benefit. The principle is clear and has stood the test of time, but we need to reinterpret it for the modern age. That will be necessary again in the future, as eternal ideals must continually be interpreted anew as they are applied to contemporary conditions and challenges.
	When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he asked me to do some work on improving the relationship between Government and the charitable and voluntary sector. I have been increasingly aware ever since that, although legislation and clarity about principles are important, it is people who drive charitable endeavour, and that legislation needs to nurture enterprise and vigour in that sector.
	This Bill, in the form that it has acquired as a result of the parliamentary scrutiny process, is eminently fit for that job. I commend the efforts of those Ministers who have produced it.

Martin Horwood: I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the Cabinet Office for her kind words, and I congratulate both her and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on their performances in the debates on this Bill. I also want to congratulate many of the members of the Standing Committee, especially the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), both of whom made valuable contributions.
	Indeed, Back Benchers of all parties have made interesting contributions, and credit should also go to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), to the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). All of them extracted some important statements from the Minister, who showed that he was willing to engage with hon. Members of all parties and to listen to what they had to say.
	The importance of the Bill really came home to me when I addressed the annual general meeting of a local charity, Cheltenham Community Projects, which helps some of the most vulnerable people in our town. The previous year, I had been sent away with something of a flea in my ear, having been told that MPs should try to lift the regulatory burden and other impositions placed on smaller charities if we wanted to encourage volunteering.
	I think that I can go back to the staff of CCP and look them in the eye. They were about to consider pursuing company status, but they will now be able to pursue charitable incorporated organisation status. That will be a great improvement for all such charities.
	I remain a member of the Institute of Fundraising, which has welcomed the Bill's proposals on fundraising. For the Government to get its support is no mean achievement. The particular issue is street collections and face-to-face collections of fundsvery important sources of income, as Christian Aid alone derives15 million a year from street collections. Face-to-face fundraising from direct debits and standing orders raises 37 million of new donations every year, probably adding up to 184 million of donations over the lifetime of the donors for each charity. Some rather unfairly describe the people who collect these donations as chuggers, which is a rather insulting description for peoplesome still volunteerswho work very hard to generate that sort of income.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for that contribution, which is very much in the spirit of the Bill.
	I continue to have some reservations about the fundraising elements of the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will reassure me that he is keen to ensure that the local authorities given new powers to regulate street fundraising are not over-zealous in their application.
	I have other reservations about other parts of the Bill, including clause 38 on the liability of trustees. It still fails to protect trustees from liability in respect of pursuing ethical investment policies, which strikes me as entirely laudable, so will the Minister look further into providing ways in which such ethical policies could be pursued by charities just as they are by others?
	I view the charity tribunal as a very welcome development, as it is absolutely right to have a court of appeal against decisions by the Charity Commission. In Committee, I provided a particular example of the need to allow the tribunal also to hear decisions that were not taken by the Charity Commission. That argument was lost on the Minister, but he was kind enough to describe the issue as extremely important. It is not yet clear how it is to be tackled, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
	Issues of academic freedom are also relevant. There are no powers to protect academic freedomunlike in the Higher Education Act 2004, for exampleand the Charity Commission has quite draconian powers to remove entire boards of trustees. Those now apply to some higher education institutions and collegiate universities, so the need to protect academic freedom remains an important issue. These matters will have to be pursued in other ways and in other places, but I hope that the Minister will take them into account. I am hopeful that he will, because both in today's debate and in Committee he demonstrated a general willingness to listen and to respond, which has been greatly appreciated on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	Finally, I would like briefly to thank the researchers who helped me during the Bill's passage: Jake Rigg, Jessica Hambly, Elizabeth Poston and Hollie Voyce, who at times had more influence on the Minister than I did. I am most grateful for their contributions. I am delighted to be present at the final stages of a Bill that I first debated when I was working in the charity sector and was not even a candidate for Parliament. It is pleasing to be in my place for the final stages.

Edward Miliband: I certainly cannot give directions to the commission, but I am confident that under the Bill, there is no opportunity for vexatious local authorities to prevent fundraising as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He mentioned ethical investment, but charities have quite a lot of latitude in that area. A Charity Commission publication, CC14, explains that, but I suspect that discussion on the subject will continue.
	In closing, let me make three simple points. First, the legislation has greatly benefited from the long deliberation that has taken place, which included pre-legislative scrutiny. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and other members of the Joint Committee. I thank, too, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), both of whom have helped me.
	The long deliberation meant that three Ministers were involved with the Bill, including myself, and I thank my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). I thank, too, hon. Members on both sides of the House for taking part in our debate and improving the Bill, particularly the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He was a schoolteacher in a former life, and sometimes, when talking to him, I felt as though I was undergoing a hard exam session, but the Bill is the better for his contribution. The same is true of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who sought to improve the Bill, and has indeed done so. He took remarks about the Cheltenham principle and ber-chuggers in the spirit in which they were intended. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who has guided me through the process, and my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), and for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), who offered valuable help. I take the opportunity to thank a hard-working team of officials, led by Richard Corden, and the parliamentary draftsmen, whose work often goes unnoticed.
	Secondly, I thank the Charity Commission for its contribution. It has come in for stick at times during the progress of the Bill, but there is general recognition across the House that it has a difficult job, given that there are 190,000 charities but only a few hundred staff at the commission. The staff now have the heavy responsibility of implementing the Bill under the leadership of Dame Suzi Leather, the new chief charity commissioner. They take that responsibility seriously, and will seek to demonstrate the qualities of a 21st-century regulator.
	Finally, I pay tribute to the 190,000 charities across the country, which are the subject of the Bill. We all have charities in our constituencies, and they demonstrate what Beveridge long ago called the
	driving power of social conscience.
	They are making a difference across our country, and the Bill aims to support them in their inspiring work. I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Read a Second time.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation bills),
	That the Bill not be committed to a Committee of the whole House [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Order for Third Reading read.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Read a Second time.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation bills),
	That the Bill be not committed to a Committee of the whole House [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Order for Third Reading read.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Michael Penning: I stand here this evening, on the eve of the board decision on the future of West Herts Hospitals NHS trust, to deliver this petition on behalf of Dacorum hospital action group and the residents of my constituency.
	The petition of the residents and workers of Dacorum district of Hertfordshire declare the current consultation of West Herts Hospital Trust is flawed and seeks to damage our local health service. It overlooks the fact that Hemel Hempstead Hospital is a modern hospital and has the benefit of the adjoining Paradise site which is in public ownership. To move acute services and maternity to an already overcrowded Watford Hospital, which is due for demolition and for rebuilding, will be extremely detrimental to all the people of West Herts. Furthermore, Hemel Hempstead has the largest population of any town in Hertfordshire and has been declared a growth area. The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to call in this current flawed consultation of West Herts Hospital Trust. And the petitioners remain, etc.
	The second petition, which in combination with the first accumulates some 15,000 signatures, reads:
	The petition of the residents of Dacorum and others declares the petitioners' serious concerns about the plans of West Herts hospital NHS trust to cut health provision, including the removal of all acute services from Hemel Hempstead hospital. The petitioners further declare that these cuts aim to generate financial savings and do not take into account the clinical expertise needed...The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State to use all of her powers to reverse any proposed plans, and for her to visit Hemel Hempstead Hospital at her earliest opportunity and address the residents and their concerns. And the petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the granting of this Adjournment debate. Although there have been many debates and many questions have been asked relating to defence and the armed forces in recent years, Parliament has only touched on the subject of compassionate leave for service personnel. As such, I hope that the Minister will take on board the points raised, especially at a time when we are demanding so much from our service personnel.
	As well as some long-standing commitments, since 1997 the Government have taken our armed forces into a series of new conflicts across the globe. Aside from the 8,500 troops stationed in Northern Ireland, there are about 13,400 British troops on operational duties abroad. There are 5,000 operational troops in Afghanistan, 900 in the Balkans, 300 on UN missions and 7,200 in Iraq. Each one of those troops does their duty tirelessly.
	Day in and day out, often in the face of intolerable dangers, our troops are out there on the front line in some of the most inhospitable and dangerous conditions imaginable. We are all no doubt aware of the dangers that they face, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are challenged by suicide bombings and other horrendous acts while trying to bring peace and stability to those countries. We are all grateful for their courage and bravery.
	The Government have sent those young men and women into those theatres of danger and they have a responsibility to do what they practically can to safeguard not only the safety of our troops, but their welfare and morale, and that of their families. On tours of duty lasting six months, our troops are separated from their family and friends. Being so far apart from loved ones can have an impact on morale. Troops can miss birthdays and weddings, and even births and deaths. That absence is part of their job, and troops and their families understand that. However, it can still create emotional and physical burdens on military families. That is why we have a system to allow service personnel to take compassionate leave in certain circumstances.
	I draw the attention of the House to my constituent, Mrs. Beryl Miles, whose medically trained daughter, Corporal Bronwen Pickup, is currently serving in Iraq. Mrs. Miles was an active and sporting individual until recently, when she had to have surgery for a serious spinal condition. She is currently in a state of disability in her home, while she recovers from her operation. Her home has had to be adapted and transformed with new facilities, such as a stair lift, to make her life a little easier for her. Despite the help that she is currently receiving, like most other people at a traumatic time, what Mrs. Miles really wanted at her time of need, both emotionally and physically, was her daughter. Being medically trained, Corporal Pickup was an ideal person to offer her mother the vital help that she needed to recover.
	Back in August, when it first became clear that Mrs. Miles would need an operation, an application for compassionate leave was made to the Army welfare service. That application was rejected on the basis that Mrs. Miles was receiving treatment in hospital. I am not criticising that decision, given the circumstances at the time and the criteria for compassionate leave. The problem with regard to compassionate leave in this case arose when Mrs. Miles left hospital in September and Corporal Pickup requested leave to be with her mother. At that time, Mrs. Miles did not have access to the 24-hour care afforded to her in hospital, which was the basis for the earlier rejection. Nevertheless, Corporal Pickup's request was again rejected by the Army welfare service and Mrs. Miles was left to go home.
	The Army's criteria for compassionate leave state that it can be granted to personnel
	For urgent reasons, of an exceptional or personal nature, when the presence of the individual is considered essential to lessen domestic hardship.
	Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), when he was a Defence Minister, stated:
	The purpose of compassionate leave is to allow Service personnel an authorised period of absence to enable them to attend to a personal crisis. There is no definitive list of occasions when it is appropriate to allow compassionate leave to be taken as each case requires individual, objective and sensitive assessment.[ Official Report, 22 June 2005; Vol. 435,c. 1060W.]
	That is a common-sense definition that allows our soldiers to have confidence that, when things are going wrong, they will be allowed to go home for a short time to deal with the crisis.
	Mrs. Miles was clear that, when she left hospital, she was in need of urgent support from her daughter, whose experience and medical training would have been helpful to Mrs. Miles. More significant than Mrs. Miles's opinion of what was best for herself, was the opinion of her daughter. She, too, wanted to go home and felt that this was exactly the sort of family situation that warranted compassionate leave. This case was exceptional and the decision of the AWS added to the physical and emotional burdens on Mrs. Miles, as well as to the emotions of her daughter.
	Part of the problem in this case was the inconsistency of the AWS. It denied compassionate leave because Mrs. Miles was in hospital, which gave rise to the implied expectation that it would be granted when she left. However, when Mrs. Miles actually left hospital, Corporal Pickup's request was again rejected. Although I appreciate that we cannot predict in advance every possible family circumstance, we evidently need clearer guidelines in place so that service personnel will have a greater understanding of when their circumstances qualify for compassionate leave. As far as my constituent was concerned, her circumstances seemed to fit the criteria, so she thought that her daughter would be able to spend some time with her to help with her recuperation, especially considering that her spine had been operated on.
	I mentioned earlier that the Government have a responsibility for the morale of our troops. In that context, it is not good for troop morale when hard-working and brave soldiers are denied the chance to spend a few days at home with their ill parents. We need our soldiers to be 100 per cent. focused on their task to get the very best out of them. Although the nature of our service personnel's work means that they cannot be afforded the flexibility to respond to family responsibilities that they would get in alternative professions, the Government must be considerate and compassionate to those who put their lives on the line for their country. The Government need to show that they care about our troops and their families.
	That was why I was disappointed by the Government's response. I am worried that we will lose Corporal Pickup because of the handling of the case, despite the fact that trained and skilled soldiers such as her are needed so badly at this time that they cannot be given compassionate leave. The way in which the case has been handled has been a disgrace. I am reluctant to interfere with the workings of the Ministry of Defence at a time when it is under great pressure in Iraqand Afghanistan. However, retaining troops and maintaining morale are aspects of the way in which we can support our armed forces, and one would expect the Government to welcome such support.
	I took the trouble of writing to the Secretary of State. The timetable for granting the compassionate leave was about two weeks for the reason that there was no point in sending Corporal Pickup home while her mother was still in hospital. We eventually received a date on which the operation would take place and then a date when Mrs. Miles would leave hospital. I sent that information to the Secretary of State by fax and post.
	I understand why the Secretary of State did not reply, but he clearly got the message because, to my amazement, Corporal Pickup found herself being moved from her base in Iraq to a new location where communication was much harder, if not impossible. I do not think that that helped her to recognise her vital role in the effort that we are putting into Iraq. It simply confirmed that no one cared about her or her mother, or about what happened to either of them. Indeed, if she had doubts about remaining in the Army, such an extraordinary and perhaps vindictive approach will have confirmed her worst fears.
	Although I appreciate that our presence in Iraq is important, my constituent has been left with the impression that the Army's need for Corporal Pickup was far greater than her need for her daughter, Bronwen. The evidence seems to show that our need for fully trained medics is greater than the media lead us to believe and greater than the reported casualty figures suggest. If the situation is so bad that one corporal cannot go home to help her mother to recover from a spinal injury, perhaps that is why people are questioning exactly what is going on out there. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will be able to reassure us that the AWS is not being put under any political pressure to find excuses not to grant compassionate leave because of a shortfall in troop numbers.
	I took the trouble to telephone the person at AWS who was responsible for the case. He told me that he had checked with the person at the hospital and had had it confirmed that Mrs. Miles would be all right. I do not think that that person was a doctor, although Mrs. Miles has lived to tell this sorry tale, so she is all right to some extent. The person then assured me that if things got worse, the Red Cross could pop in. I have nothing against the Red Cross or any of the people involved, but any sane person would agree that, good though it is, the Red Cross cannot provide the same moral and mental comfort that Mrs. Miles needed and that her daughter wanted to provide.
	I fear that there could be more Corporal Pickups in our armed forces, some of whom may be too cynical about the compassionate leave system to apply or who may have been put off after hearing of the rejections of their applications that others have received. I also fear that there could be more Mrs. Mileses in our constituencies, in urgent need of support from a family member serving abroad. I am further concerned that this may have a detrimental impact on morale, recruitment and retention.
	In the past year, some 14,000 troops left the Army. Although we do not know what proportion of those were feeling the strain of being apart from their family, rejecting applications for compassionate leave such as Corporal Pickup's will not help to encourage our soldiers to spend more time in our military. Supporting our troops means more than letting them go home.
	The handling of this case was a disgrace and must not happen again. If a soldier has a family crisis, moving them to an area out of communication is brutal. It is well known that good leadership means looking after the finest asset in our armed forcesthe people. The treatment of Corporal Pickup and her mother is extremely disappointing. The attitude of the Ministers involved is worse. The letter that I finally received in response to my initial fax and letter arrived on Monday, two weeks after the operation. Worse still, it said nothing. It was clear that the Minister had no understanding of the problem and the minion who wrote the letter had no information. When we are trying so hard to support our soldiers abroad, it is a shame that their own leaders in government should ignore their simple requests.
	I do not think the Minister can correct the wrongs that have been done to Corporal Pickup and her mother, but he can try to prevent such weak and short-sighted handling of a delicate and important problem. I look forward to hearing his views on compassionate leave and whether he has any plans to offer more assistance to people like my constituent, Mrs. Miles, and her daughter.

Adam Ingram: I welcome the opportunity to debate a narrow but highly important aspect of welfare support for our service personnel and their families. Although I will deal with compassionate leave in particular, it would be useful if I set out the context of the overall welfare support that we provide our servicemen and women at home and while they are serving abroad or on operational deployments.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who would normally have replied to the debate and who replied to his letter. He is currently involved elsewhere in his role as Minister for Veterans.
	I wish the hon. Gentleman had not used the words vindictive and minion in his comments. I understand some of the passion that he feels, but he should remember that it was a member of serving personnel who made the judgment. If he is accusing serving personnel of being vindictive, that is quite a charge.

Adam Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Ministers draft every letter, he should get into the real world. Clearly, the system exists to help Ministers, who have ultimate responsibility for what goes out in their name.
	The Government and the services recognise that welfare is an important and integral element of operational efficiency. The Ministry of Defence has a duty of care to ensure that wherever personnel are required to serve, welfare measures are in place which provide the timely and effective assistance necessary to maintain operational effectiveness. Welfare is therefore MOD core business.
	Before turning to compassionate and other forms of leave, I must emphasise that the granting and timing of all forms of absence is subject at all times to operational requirements and the general exigencies of each service. Compassionate leave is just one of the many types of leave available to our service personnel. In addition to annual leave, which is for the purpose of allowing service personnel time away from duty so that they return to work refreshed, other types of leave and absence such as post- operational leave, maternity leave and time off for dependants are all available when required.
	Before I deal with compassionate leave, I must explain that there is a difference between compassionate leave and time off for dependants, although they may appear similar. Primarily, time off for dependants is unpaid leave to allow individuals to deal with emergencies that affect them or their dependants. Commanding officers may grant time off when there are insufficient grounds to grant paid compassionate leave. Service personnel who are required to be away for more than a few days should apply for compassionate leave, annual leave or a combination of the two according to service regulations.
	With regard to the purposes for which compassionate leave is available, compassionate leave is additional to an individual's normal leave entitlement and it is available to allow service personnel an authorised period of absence to enable them to attend to a personal crisis. However, given the myriad of potential difficulties individuals can encounter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why hard and fast rules cannot be laid down for granting compassionate leave. We are talking about real people's lives, and each case requires individual, objective, sensitive and timely assessment. The amount of compassionate leave that may be awarded rests with the commanding officer, and it is, as it always must be, a balance between the needs of the individual, the current operational situation and the exigencies of the service.
	Although the rules governing compassionate leave need to be as flexible as possible, general guidance is provided to commanding officers. The overriding principle of the guidance emphasises that commanding officers should, where possible, grant compassionate leave, unless the criteria laid down in the guidelines are not met or the needs of the service take priority. Compassionate leave may be granted for periods of up to four weeks, but it may be extended in exceptional circumstances for longer periods following a review of each individual case.
	Compassionate leave is not the solution to recurring problems, which should be dealt with by addressing them by some other form of resolution through single service welfare channels. Various other forms of leave are available to service personnel, and they may be more appropriate to meet the needs of both the individual and the servicefor example, special paid or unpaid leave can be offered where practicable, and commanding officers may grant specific short periods of authorised absence in addition to compassionate and normal leave.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised the case of his constituent, Mrs. Miles, whose daughter, Corporal Bronwen Pickup, was refused compassionate leave to look after Mrs. Miles following Mrs. Miles's discharge from hospital. The facts, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, are that Mrs. Miles was taken into hospital with severe back pain shortly before Corporal Pickup returned home on leave from Iraq in August. Corporal Pickup asked to be allowed to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds because of her mother's illness. Her unit referred the matter to the Army Welfare Service, which investigated and recommended that Corporal Pickup should return to her unit as planned because her mother was receiving sufficient care in hospital and a hospital care plan would be put in place following her mother's discharge. Corporal Pickup returned to Iraq at the end of her leave.
	On 15 September, Corporal Pickup again requested compassionate leave as she was concerned that her mother, who had been discharged from hospital, was not receiving adequate after-care. The Army Welfare Service then contacted the occupational therapist dealing with Mrs. Miles, from whom it was understood that Mrs. Miles had friends and family, including her husband, who were able to care for her as well as health professionals. It was therefore decided again not to grant Corporal Pickup compassionate leave.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness, and that of the family, at that decision. I assure him that the chain of command is very alert to the difficulties that personnel can face when they are separated from their families, and it is not vindictive. While taking into account operational requirements, it is sensitive and responsive to individual needs, and it will often release personnel on compassionate leave. However, where it considers that an individual cannot be released because operational requirements are paramount, it will, where appropriate, refer such cases to the respective welfare organisations for advice, which ensures that each case is treated on its merits fairly and sensitively.
	Each service has developed its own welfare organisation tailored to meet the different needs of the respective personnel. The Royal Navy has the Naval Personnel and Family Service, the Army has the Army Welfare Service, and the Royal Air Force has contracted welfare support to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Each welfare organisation is professionally qualified and trained and, most importantly, independent of the chain of command. They are therefore well placed to balance individual personal circumstances against operational requirements. Clearly, there will be some cases in which they rule in favour of an individual and some in which they do not.
	The important point is that such a decision is made only after thorough consideration of all the circumstances and merits of each individual case. In addition, each case is kept under constant review as regards any changing circumstances to ensure that our service personnel receive the best support possible. In support of the chain of command and the formal welfare organisations, personnel may, depending on the issue, seek help and advice from other sources such as padres and doctors. There are therefore many opportunities for service personnel to seek and obtain help on any welfare issue.
	We are committed to providing a welfare structure that, wherever practicable and manageable, supports the needs of the service community. For personnel to be fully effective in their duties, it is essential that their well-being and that of their dependants is properly cared for. The same welfare structures that are normally provided in the United Kingdom by local authorities, or by other external agencies, should be available to our serving personnel while serving overseas. Our aim is to deliver comprehensive community support to our servicemen and women and their dependants. The welfare provision provided by each service and other professional agencies is equally accessible to the dependants of serving personnel, whose morale and well-being have a direct bearing on the effectiveness of service personnel. During peacetime deployments, or while on operations, our aim is to provide the same level of support that would be provided back at an individual's home base.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject and for allowing me the opportunity to describe our compassionate leave arrangements and how they fit into the broader welfare package. I hope that he will accept that we do our best to provide comprehensive welfare for all our people. We genuinely try hard to strike the right balance between the necessary demands of operations and the need to react sensitively and with compassion to the personal and family needs of servicemen and women. It is right that he, and other hon. Members who raise similar cases, should continue to press on behalf of their constituents where they feel that we have not got the balance right. As ever, I undertake always carefully to consider any case that is raised with me or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has direct responsibility for such matters.
	I have tried to set out the way in which this important issue is dealt with. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that a chain of command is involved and that if Ministers try to interfere too closely we may be trying to countermand operational issues such as why a person is needed in an operational theatre as opposed to being granted compassionate leave. That would not be a helpful step. Our military personnel are best treated within the military family. We try to give them all possible opportunities and independent support. Ministers do get engaged, but there is a balance to be struck at all times. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider his Territorial Army experience, as he should understand only too well the importance of the chain of command and of not having cross-interference from Ministers.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.
	Corrections
	 Official Report, 24 October 2006: In column 1491, under the petition by Barbara Keeley, after Mrs. Sandra, insert Warburton.
	 Official Report, 24 October 2006: In column 1432, under Noes, insert Sir John Butterfill
	 Official Report, 24 October 2006: In col.1461, insert Patrick Hall.